IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11494 of 2007 Between: Mrs. Dannana Ramakrishnamma W/o Late Ramu naidu of K. Krishnapuram Village, D. Rajeru mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector & district Magistrate, Vizianagaram. 2 The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Vizianagaram. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. .....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 Rule Nisi Colling for the records leading upto and includsive of the proceedings of the 1st respondnet herein in R.C. No.7/2006 G8 dated 28-4-2007 dismissisng the petition filed under Clause 21(1) of A.P. Stte Public Distribution Control Order of 2001 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondents in F.P. Sap. no 13/2005 G8 dated 11-3-2006 dismissing theAppeal and confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent in R.C. No. 1382/04.H dated 19-4-2005 of the 3rd respondent cancelling authorisation of the petitioner as F.P. Shop Dealer of K. Krishnapuram Village, D. Rajeru mndal, Vizianagram District, and quash the said proceedings by issuing a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Certiorari and to pass such otehr order or ordrs in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 19-04-2005, 11-03-2006 and 28-04-2007 passed by respondents 3, 2 and 1 respectively. At the hearing, no one represented the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for default. Even otherwise, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on merits. The authorization of the petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, was cancelled by the third respondent, vide proceedings dated 19-04- 2005. This order was preceded by show cause notice dated 29-03- 2004. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he failed to distribute 1.72 quintals of rice relating to Mid Day Meal scheme and he proceeded on leave without there being any provision for leave. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent was dismissed and a perusal of the said order shows that it contains elaborate reasons. The second respondent found that as per the original report of the C.S.DT, the petitioner diverted 1.72 quintals of rice for her personal gain. The said order was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the first respondent, who also after recording detailed reasons dismissed the same. As the petitioner failed to point out any error of law in the above three orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered orders impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ 05-03-2008 usd