THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10829 OF 2004 Dated 25th July, 2007 Between: Smt. Padmavathi W/o Venkateswarlu …Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore and others. …Respondents. ORAL ORDER: This writ petition was filed by a fair price shop dealer appointed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 challenging the cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner as confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer for distribution of Scheduled Commodities for Polireddypalem of D.V.Satram Mandal, Nellore District. The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Anti-Smuggling, Sullurpet, inspected the shop of the petitioner and on noticing some irregularities, he recommended for initiation of disciplinary action against the fair price shop dealer i.e. the petitioner. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated for cancellation of authorization of the petitioner and as many as 12 charges were framed and explanation was called for from the petitioner by the primary authority, Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur. The petitioner filed her explanation to the show-cause notice dated 22.12.2001. Explanation of the petitioner was accepted against several charges expect the charges 8,9,10 and 12 and on the ground that the charges 8, 9, 10 and 12 were proved the primary authority cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. As against the order of cancellation, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Joint Collector. But, however, the Joint Collector also confirmed the order of the primary authority not on the findings recorded with reference to charges 8,9, 10 and 12, but totally on a different ground. Though Revision Petition is filed to the Collector, the same also ended in dismissal. Hence, this writ petition. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations which formed basis for cancellation of authorization are trivial and technical and the explanation offered by the petitioner was not considered in proper perspective even by the primary authority. It is submitted that in any event, when the findings of the primary authority are challenged in appeal, the appellate authority, instead of confining the consideration on the charges, which formed basis for cancellation of the authorization, exceeded its jurisdiction and confirmed the order of cancellation on a different ground. Thereafter, the Revision Petition filed also ended in dismissal without considering the matter in proper perspective. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that as much as the petitioner indulged in violation of the conditions of authorization and the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System), 1973, the disciplinary authority has considered the matter elaborately and passed orders and therefore, the appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the orders of the primary authority. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere in this writ petition. I have perused the orders passed by the primary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority. Primarily, the disciplinary authority accepted the explanation of the petitioner to all the charges except the charges 8,9,10 and 12. Even so far as charges 8, 9, 10 are concerned, they are one and the same, but, however, they were shown as three different charges. In the said charges, it is alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner failed to keep the authorization at the fair price shop. In the explanation of the petitioner, it is the case of the petitioner that due to ill-health, she was not in the shop on the date of inspection and for the safe custody, the licenses were kept in the house of the petitioner which is abutting the shop. With reference to other charges, it is to be noted that it is not in dispute that there is a valid renewed licence granted in favour of the petitioner which was in possession of the petitioner during the relevant point of time and the explanation offered by the petitioner is also convincing. In spite of the same, the primary authority has confirmed the said charge against the petitioner. Even with regard to charge No.12, it is alleged that two rice coupons of third party cardholders were found in the shop of the petitioner and as such it was presumed that the said coupons were collected for misusing the rice. In the explanation, it was pleaded by the petitioner that the cardholders might have brought the said coupons and left in the shop. As much as there is no charge of embezzlement as such, the same also will not constitute a ground for cancelling the very authorization. In any event, as the very Control Order provides for appeal against the order of cancellation, the appellate authority should have considered the appeal with reference to the charges, whereas it had confirmed the order of cancellation on different ground, that too, without any further opportunity and notice to the petitioner. The Revision Petition was also dealt with in similar manner. At the time of admission of the writ petition, this court granted interim orders as early as on 29.6.2004 and it is stated that the petitioner is continuing as fair price shop dealer. The allegations on which the cancellation was ordered by the primary authority are trivial and technical. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not considered in proper perspective by the disciplinary authority. Even the appellate authority, which is the authority in Section 6-A proceedings dropped the proceedings initiated under the Essential Commodities Act, but in the appeal filed under the A.P.Scheduled Commodities, it had confirmed the order of the primary authority not on the findings recorded against the petitioner, but on a charge which was dropped. The appellate authority and the revisional authority have not considered the matter in proper perspective. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order of cancellation as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities is quashed. No costs. 25-7-2007 _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. VR