IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9785 of 2008 Between: P. Venkata Reddy, S/o China Nagi Reddy Pottemvaripalli, Sodam Mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 07-05-2002 and 09-02-2008 of respondent Nos.3 and 1 respectively. By order dated 07-05-2002, respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop in Pottemvaripalli Village, Sodam Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed on 17- 07-2002. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, who, by order dated 09-02-2008, dismissed the same. Questioning these orders, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. Four charges were framed against the petitioner, which read as under: ‘Charge 1: The dealer has failed to maintain distribution of rice coupons register there by violated condition 11 of the authorization. Charge 2: The dealer has made fictitious entries in the issue register of FFWP Rice and diverted the resultant rice of 345 bags of rice in the black market thereby contravened clause 14(b) of A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by card System) Order, 1973. Charge 3: The dealer has involved in shifting of 345 bags of rice from his shop to Grampanchayat with an intention to sell the same in black market for pecuniary gain thereby contravened Clause 14 A (c) of A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. Charge 4: There was a variation of 19-45 quintals of rice when compared with the ground balance to that of book balance hence the dealer has failed to maintain registers/records, thereby violated the condition 4 of the authorization.’ Respondent No.3, in his order dated 07-05-2002, observed that the petitioner failed to submit any explanation in reply to the show cause notice served on him on 19-04-2002. He found the petitioner guilty of all the four charges. The petitioner averred that respondent No.2, by his order dated 17-07-2002, confirmed the said order of respondent No.3 in appeal, but, he failed to file a copy of the said order of respondent No.2. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 shows that respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal for default, and the revision was dismissed mainly on the ground that major variation of 19.45 quintals of rice was detected and the petitioner failed to explain the same. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record, I am of the view that the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 1 do not suffer from any errors warranting interference of this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As noted above, respondent No.3 clearly observed in his order that petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. In his entire affidavit, the petitioner did not plead that he filed the explanation and that respondent No.3 erroneously observed that he did not file explanation. In the absence of any explanation offered by the petitioner against the charges framed, he failed to put forth any issue for adjudication and it is reasonable to presume that he had no explanation to offer and all the charges are proved. Even before respondent No.2, the petitioner remained ex parte. He did not explain the reason why he has not filed a copy of the order passed by respondent No.2. in this Writ Petition. Though respondent No.1 has not passed an elaborate order, the ground of dismissal of revision viz., failure of petitioner to explain the huge variation of 19.45 quintals of rice, is sufficient to dismiss the revision while confirming the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.12889 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 30th April, 2008 LUR