IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 14869 of 2005 Between: P. Sri Sailam, S/o. P. Bala Swamy, R/o. Chinnamandadi Village, Peddamandadi Mandal,Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector (CS)/ Joint Collector, Collectorate (CS), Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedamandadi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 V. Kurumurthy, S/o. Papanna, Peddamandadi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District,. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt. 4-7-2005 in Appeal Case No. CS1/7/2005 of the 1st Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, against the material on record and also unconstitutional and consequently permit the petitioner to continue as F.P. Shop Dealer for Chinnamandadi Village, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SRINIVASULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14869 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner at the relevant time was authorised Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of Chinna Jalalpuram Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (MRO), third respondent herein, submitted a report dated 06.11.2004 complaining that the petitioner collected gratiﬁcation of Rs.20/- from each Individual Sanitary Beneﬁciaries, that he is distributing commodities on three days only in a month, that he is not residing in the Village and is having kirana shop at Wanaparthy town, that he is distributing kerosene oil once in two or three months, that he has entered in distribution register as many as thirty ﬁve food for work (FFW) coupons which were not allotted to him and that he has entered eight FFW coupons twice. Based on the report of MRO, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO), second respondent herein, issued a show cause notice dated 24.11.2004. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 02.12.2004 denying the allegations and requested to withdraw the proceedings. On considering the explanation RDO passed orders on 08.12.2004 directing continuance of the petitioner as FPS dealer. This was challenged by the Sarpanch of the Village before the appellate authority - Joint Collector, ﬁrst respondent herein, who by order dated 04.07.2005 set aside the order of RDO and directed removal of the petitioner from dealership. The order of ﬁrst respondent is assailed in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that ﬁrst respondent – appellate authority was in error in reversing the well considered order of RDO. He nextly contends that the allegation regarding bogus FFW coupons is not correct and the petitioner was supplied these coupons by MRO against which rice was supplied and entries were made in the distribution register. Lastly he submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chinnamandadi Village and the allegation that he is resident of Wanaparthy is not correct. These contentions are refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The contention that RDO passed well considered order is wholly misconceived. RDO did not discuss each charge as indicated in the show cause notice separately. After narrating the factual background without any reasons or justiﬁcation in one go RDO directed to continue the petitioner as FPS dealer. Exercise of disciplinary power by RDO is much to be desired. In that view of the matter, appellate authority - ﬁrst respondent was correct in setting aside the order of RDO. A perusal of order of appellate authority – ﬁrst respondent would show that the petitioner, while submitting explanation, mentioned that his wife is running a kirana shop and telephone booth at Wanaparthy. This is clear admission by the petitioner. It may be true that he had FPS shop at Chinnamandadi and he had also kiran shop and telephone booth in Wanaparthy. As per the relevant Control Order as well as executive instructions, a FPS dealer shall have to be resident of the Village where FPS is located. When FPS dealer changes his residence after appointment as authorised FPS dealer, the same is certainly a culpable factor entailing in translation of authorisation. Lastly with regard to supply of FFW rice against thirty-ﬁve bogus coupons and double entries in distribution register regarding other coupons, it is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ petition (See T.Edukondalu v RDO[1]). RDO did not record any ﬁnding on any of the charges whereas the Joint Collector recorded ﬁndings and rightly set aside the order of RDO. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21st October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Collector (CS)/ Joint Collector, Collectorate (CS), Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedamandadi Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 2CCs to GP for Civil Supplies 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 1999 (5) ALT 600