THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9603 of 2007 ORDER : 1) The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 1st Respondent herein, dated 24-01-2006 concurrently confirmed in appeal and revision by orders, dated 05-11-2005 and 15-01-2007 by the Joint Collector and District Collector, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively, canceling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2) The fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected on 18-02-2005. It was noticed that there were certain irregularities committed by the petitioner. Disciplinary action was, therefore, initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, charging the petitioner : (i) that there is a variation of 6 Kgs. of rice and 6 litres of K.Oil between the book balance and ground balance. (ii) that Nakka Kodandaramana, F.P. Shop Dealer failed to exhibit the stock-cum-price list board at the F.P. Shop. (iii) that he is doing business in unauthorized premises. (iv) that he is not distributing K.Oil with 1 litre container sealed by the weights and measures Inspector. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity and on considering the explanation filed by him, the charges were found proved. Accordingly, the licence was cancelled by orders, dated 24-01-2006. The further remedies availed by the petitioner by way of an appeal and revision petition to the Respondents 2 and 3 also failed. 3) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the material on record. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the charges per se. His only contention is that the charges are trivial in nature and the same do not warrant the cancellation of licence. I am not inclined to accept the contention though variation of 6 Kgs. of rice and 6 litres of K.Oil appears to be trivial lapse, in reality it cannot be considered as trivial in nature, because to the said extent it had resulted in denial of supply to the eligible cardholders. Further, the charge that the petitioner was conducting business in an unauthorized premises cannot be considered as a trivial at all. As per the conditions of authorization, it is not permissible for the petitioner to conduct the business wherever he likes. 5) The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularities and the same does not warrant interference. 6) The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 7) In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.29257 of 2007 is disposed of as unnecessary. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31st August, 2012. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9603 of 2007 Date : 31-08-2012 Between : N.Kodanda Ramana .. Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District & Others.. Respondents