THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24797 of 2010 DT.24.01.2011 Between: P.Uma Devi … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 20.09.2010, in proceedings No.B3/4758/2010, of respondent No.3, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. I have heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.66 of Nizamabad Urban. On 17.08.2010, her shop was inspected by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer and it was found during the inspection that one Sri P.Venkat Ramana was running the fair price shop. Following the report submitted by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice, dated 31.08.2010, to which, the petitioner submitted her explanation, dated 14.09.2010, wherein she has stated that as she is physically handicapped, she has been taking the assistance of her relative, by name, P.Venkat Ramana. Respondent No.3 has, however, cancelled the authorization by treating the petitioner’s relative as a benami person. The fact that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person is not disputed by the respondents. The plea of the petitioner that Sri P.Venkat Ramana is her relative is not rejected by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. Therefore, there is no justification for respondent No.3 to presume that P.Venkat Ramana is a benami person, as the petitioner, who is admittedly a physically handicapped person, is not expected to run the shop without anyone’s assistance. Therefore, I am of the opinion that cancellation of authorization on the ground that a person other than the petitioner was found running the shop cannot be justified. But, at the same time, it requires to be noted that if the petitioner is unable to run the shop without assistance, she ought to have taken permission from respondent No.3 for taking the assistance of a specified person. Her failure to take such permission is certainly a lapse, but such a lapse does not warrant the extreme action of termination of authorization. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner is permitted to make an application before respondent No.3 for permitting her to take the assistance of a person to be nominated by her, within a period of four weeks from today. On such application being made, the same shall be examined and appropriate decision thereon shall be taken by respondent No.3. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:24.01.2011 VGB