HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.A.No.935 of 2011 JUDGMENT(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant was respondent No.4 before the learned single Judge. He filed a complaint that the writ petitioner was running his fair price shop contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. 2. There were three charges against the writ petitioner, but the learned single Judge found that the second and third charges which pertain to display of the Board and giving some other information were all trivial in nature. Accordingly, the learned single Judge did not think it necessary to dwell upon these two allegations. 3. First allegation against the writ petitioner is some what serious, which was to the effect that he sold rice, kerosene oil and sugar at the rate higher than the prescribed rate. 4. On the basis of these allegations, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner, but he denied the charges against him. 5. Instead of making an effort to prove the charges against the writ petitioner, the primary authority took the view that the burden was on the writ petitioner to show that the allegations were incorrect. Since, according to the primary authority the writ petitioner had not been able to disprove the allegations, an order was passed to cancel the licence issued to him. 6. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner was rejected and under these circumstances, the writ petitioner approached the learned single Judge. 7. Learned single Judge, in our opinion, quite rightly found that the burden was on the authorities to show that there was a violation of the terms of the licence given to the writ petitioner. The burden was not on the writ petitioner to show that he had complied with the terms of the licence. 8. A specific allegation was made that the writ petitioner was selling rice, kerosene oil and sugar at the rate higher than the prescribed rate. The primary authority as well as the appellate authority ought to have proved these allegations rather than shifting the burden on the writ petitioner. Learned single Judge found that in view of this infirmity, cancellation of the licence of the writ petitioner was not sustainable. 9. As mentioned above, the burden was wrongly placed upon the writ petitioner and we have no reason to disagree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in this regard. In the absence of the allegations being proved against the writ petitioner, the cancellation order was not sustainable. 10. There is no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 11. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed. ____________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMAD, J Date:16.11.2011 Sj W.A.No.935 of 2011 Page 3 of 3