THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24276 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner was a dealer of fair price shop of Mannava Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Pursuant to the inspection made in the premises of his fair price shop, his books of accounts and physical stocks are verified. Based on the same, the Tahsildar, Tenali, has submitted a report to the second respondent - Sub-Collector, Tenali, who is the primary authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. Having noticed huge variations in the stocks, when the book balance was compared with the ground balance, and alleging that the petitioner has supplied huge stock of rice to various parties without coupons and has not maintained correct records, proceedings were initiated to cancel his authorisation. In spite of giving opportunity to submit explanation to the charges framed against him, though the petitioner represented before the second respondent, he sought time only on the ground that he wanted to file appeal against the order of suspension but he has not submitted any explanation. With reference to the charges framed against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that in spite of giving him opportunity, he has not submitted any explanation, the second respondent by order, dated 01.07.2002 in Rc.No.1383/20022 K, cancelled his authorisation alleging that he has diverted 146.85 Quintals of rice to the black market and has violated the instructions by not maintaining the registers and thus, violated the provisions of Clauses 3(4) and 16(4) of A.P.S.C.(RDCS) Order, 1973. The petitioner though carried the matter in appeal before the third respondent – Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District, the same was dismissed vide order, dated 07.09.2002. He was also unsuccessful in the revision filed before the first respondent/revisional authority – District Collector, Guntur. In this Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and that as the coupons were issued to the third parties with regard to the supplies, it cannot be said that the petitioner supplied the rice to the third parties unauthorizedly, without coupons. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that when the inspection was made, there is a huge variation found in the rice stocks, when the ground balance is compared with the book balance. It is also stated that huge quantities of rice, which are meant for distribution to the cardholders, were supplied to the third parties without coupons, as such, the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Control Order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities. In show cause notice, dated 17.06.2002, it is clearly mentioned that when the inspection was made, the book balance is 233.85 quintals of rice and the ground balance is only 87.00 quintals, thus, there is a variation of 146.85 quintals of rice and at that time, Sri B.Ramesh, Assistant of the dealer, was available in the shop and stated that the petitioner has delivered 97 quintals of rice to one Sri Bonigala Naga Malleswararao, Sarpanch of the Village, in 8 instalments, without coupons, 10 quintals of rice to A.Ramakrishna without coupons and 14 quintals to the beneficiaries of housing without allotment. When the supplies were made to a fair price shop dealer for distribution of the same to the cardholders, unless there is a valid authorisation to receive the stocks, the dealer has no authority to distribute the same to the persons of his choice without any authorized coupons issued by the competent authority. In spite of giving him opportunity, the petitioner has not availed the same and there is no proper explanation for the huge variation found, when the stocks were inspected. In view of the findings recorded by the primary authority on the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the same were confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned orders, which warrants interference in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni