IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 588 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/03/2008 in WP NO : 2076 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Jadav Chander S/o Thakur 2 Rathod Dharmu S/o Valu naik 3 Chavan thukaram S/o Gangu 4 Chavan Gopal S/o Deval, 5 Ketavat Raju S/o Valu naik All are R/o Vittunaik Thanda H/o Mogudampally Village, Zaheerabad madnal, Medak District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Medak District at Sangareddy/ 2 The Joint Collector, Medak At Sangareddy 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy 4 Keshu Naik S/o Poomu Naik, R/o Vittunaik Thanda H/o Mogudampally Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per RSR, J) This appeal is filed by the original petitioners against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25-3-2008 passed in W.P.No.2076 of 2008. The 4th respondent is a fair price shop dealer of Vittunaik Thanda, hamlet of Mogudampalli Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. By framing two charges, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of his authorization. Initially, his authorization was suspended and an enquiry was conducted. But during the course of enquiry, it was found that he is not liable for the charges and that there is no discrepancy in the stock and that he is also not responsible for diversion of 100 litres of kerosene as alleged. Based on the enquiry report, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy passed order dated 11-7-2007 in proceedings No.B2/1370/2007. At this stage it is to be noted that though the charges framed against the 4th respondent were not proved, in spite of the same, an amount of Rs.500/- was imposed as penalty in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The original petitioners who are the appellants herein filed the writ petition stating that the 4th respondent has committed irregularities and dropping of the proceedings is bad. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by recording a finding that both the charges are not proved and there is no reason for not revoking the earlier suspension order and restoring the authorization given to the appellants. In this appeal it is argued by Sri Rajamalla Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that the 4th respondent/authorized fair price shop dealer has indulged in irregularities and as such the respondent-authorities ought to have cancelled the authorization granted to him. We are not in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the reason that when complaints were filed against the 4th respondent/dealer, his authorization was suspended initially and an inquiry was ordered. Ultimately, after completion of inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted the report stating that the charges framed against the 4th respondent/dealer were not proved in the inquiry. In such an event, it is not understandable as to on what basis the penalty itself was imposed. When the inquiring authority has stated that the charges were not proved, it is not open for the appellants/consumers to plead that the 4th respondent/authorized dealer has committed irregularities and as such his authorization is to be cancelled. J For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 20th June, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR/AJR