THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1745 OF 2008 Dated: 15-09-2011 Between: Smt. P. Madhu Malini ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor and three others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1745 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the following relief: “………to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to order in D.Dis. (C1)/512/2005 dt. 12.12.2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the said order by directing the respondents to forthwith permit the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop situate at Repallewada Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, and to pass such further or other orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioner was the fair price shop dealer of Repallewada Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District whose authorisation was governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, the 3rd respondent herein issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 04-06-2004 by framing six charges, based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Satyavedu Mandal, the 4th respondent herein. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the petitioner who is the dealer of Repallevada Village is not residing in that village and is residing in Varadaiahpalem Mandal along with her husband and her father Sri P. Chakraphani Reddy is running the fair price shop on her behalf. The further allegations are that the father of the petitioner is distributing essential commodities at higher prices than the prescribed rates and has not produced the coupons of rice and kerosene before the inspecting authorities at the time of inspection and his behaviour with the card holders is not good due to his reckless answers and that he is distributing rice without proper weighment. The petitioner submitted her explanation for the said charges but having not satisfied with the explanation by recording findings on each of the charges, the 3rd respondent herein has passed order dated 30-07-2004 in proceedings Roc.C/724/04 cancelling the authorisation. The petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor District, the 2nd respondent herein and the same was dismissed and she was also unsuccessful before the revisional authority i.e., the District Collector, Chittoor District, the 1st respondent herein. Hence, the writ petition. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of valid explanation submitted by the petitioner, no proper enquiry was conducted and based on the report of the 4th respondent, the impugned order is passed cancelling her authorisation. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents submits that after grant of authorisation to the petitioner, she was married to one Surender Reddy who is a resident of Kambakam Village of Varadaiahpalem and after her marriage she is residing along with her husband at Kambakam Village. He further submits that the father of the petitioner was running the fair price shop and he was found to be selling the commodities at higher rates and has not shown the coupons at the time of inspection. According to the learned Government Pleader, the primary authority considered the matter in detail and cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner which was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. A perusal of the order passed by the 3rd respondent would make it clear that each of the charges were dealt with separately with regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioner and adverse findings were recorded against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent also referred to the report submitted by the 4th respondent. It is clear from the record that though authorisation was granted to the petitioner ten years back, after two years of her marriage, she is residing with her husband in a different village. When the authorisation is granted to the petitioner, it cannot be allowed to be run by her father permanently on her behalf. Even some cardholders have deposed that her father was selling the commodities at higher rates. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order is passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the findings recorded by the 4th respondent are confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that during the pendency of the writ petition, an interim arrangement was made which is being continued as on date. Inasmuch as no dealer is appointed on permanent basis in the place of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent, if the fair price shop is being run on temporary basis, to take steps to fill up the vacancy by following the procedure under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order 2008, within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15-09-2011 ks