IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9124 of 2005 Between: E.Varalakshmi, D/o. Naganna Goud, Fair Price Shop No.1, Amarwai (V), Maldakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maldakal Mandal, Maldakal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in imposing a ﬁne of Rs.20,000/- by his proceedings in CS 1/126/2002 dt.5-2-2005, as arbitrary, illegal, and unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein not to collect the ﬁne amount 20,000/- from the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9124 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is authorised Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer of shop No.1, Amarawai village, Maldakal Mandal in Mahaboobnagar District. The authorisation was suspended by second respondent on 28.04.2001. A show cause notice was issued calling upon her to explain with regard to charges, namely, she failed to supply the school rice to Headmaster P.S.Burdipad, for August 2000 and November, 2000, and that she failed to remit the ﬁne amount imposed by Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO), Gadwal and neglected the orders of higher authorities. Petitioner submitted explanation. After considering the same, second respondent passed orders on 18.01.2002 cancelling the authorisation. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to ﬁrst respondent, who by impugned order, dated 05.02.2005 imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- taking a lenient view. This is assailed in writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the appellate authority found that the charge as framed was not proved, it was not proper to impose such a heavy penalty. This is refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. While passing orders, ﬁrst respondent observed that there was no material irregularity committed by petitioner, she caused delay in sending rice to Headmaster, P.S.Burdipad. This itself is a very serious contravention and as rightly observed by appellate authority, she caused inconvenience to students. In that view of the matter, this Court does not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the ﬁnding recorded by ﬁrst respondent. However, for the charge alleged, imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- is on higher side. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that ends of justice would be met by imposing a ﬁne of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of modifying the order as indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.10.2008 pln