IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.23379 of 2006 Between: J. Shivanandam @ Kishan … Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Pratap Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23379 of 2006 ORDER:- The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was cancelled by respondent No.1 under the impugned order. The said cancellation is based on Clause 5 sub-clauses (3) and (4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (for short, ‘the 2001 Order’). In his order, respondent No.1 stated that under the said clause, if a fair price shop dealer was convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to any of the commodities mentioned in the schedule to the 2001 Order, the appointing authority shall by order in writing, cancel his authorization. However, in paragraph 1 of the said order, the facts narrated by him show that on the allegation that the petitioner indulged in diversion of 1600 quintals of SGRY rice, a criminal case was registered as FIR No.19 of 2006 on 03.02.2006 and the petitioner was arrested by police and kept in the police station. While the clause referred to and relied on by respondent No.1 envisaged cancellation of fair price shop authorization on the conviction of the holder of the authorization, the facts stated in his order referred to above clearly show that the criminal case was merely registered and the petitioner was arrested a few days before the impugned order was passed. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner was convicted in the abovementioned criminal case. Indeed, there was no such possibility for conviction, because, while the criminal case was registered on 03.02.2006, the impugned order was passed on 18.02.2006. As the impugned order was based on a completely incorrect interpretation of Clause 5 sub-clauses (3) and (4) of the 2001 Order, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.06.2009 ES