THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7491 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning order, dated 19.05.2006, passed by the first respondent – Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, cancelling fair price shop authorization granted to the petitioner, in exercise of power under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, as confirmed by the second and third respondents, who are appellate and revisional authorities. Petitioner was the authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of scheduled commodities in Gundlaburuju Village, Nimmanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. Based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Nimmanapalle, stating that she has committed certain irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. The allegations levelled against her are that she was not residing in the Village and left to Madanapalle town; that she was distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders only for 2 or 3 days in a month and for the remaining period, she denied the cardholders their rations; that she failed to maintain the registers/records during June and July, 2005; that she has failed to take the signatures of the cardholders in proof of supplies of the essential commodities; that she has failed to maintain cordial relations with the cardholders and she used to quarrel with them, and that she was allowing Smt. G.Sulochanamma to transact the business on her behalf. On the said allegations, her explanation was called for and she submitted the same on 25.02.2006. The primary authority has considered her explanation with reference to each of the charges and by recording findings against the petitioner, has ordered cancellation of her fair price shop authorization. Though the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and revision before the revisional authority, they were dismissed confirming the order of the primary authority. In this Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges framed against the petitioner are trivial in nature and they do not warrant extreme punishment of cancellation of her fair price shop authorization. It is submitted that though valid explanation was submitted, the primary authority has not considered the same and passed the impugned order of cancellation. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that all the charges framed against the petitioner are severe and grave and the primary authority by considering each of them separately, has recorded findings and ordered cancellation of her fair price shop authorisation and the same is also confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charges framed against the petitioner. From a perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the charges are trivial in nature. With regard to the charge that she was not residing at Gundlaburuju Village and residing at Madanapalle Town, she explained that she has undergone family planning operation and was advised rest but no evidence was filed in support thereof. The further charge that she is opening the shop only for 2 or 3 days in a month and denying the cardholders supplies of essential commodities for the remaining period in the month, is also held proved, and it is a serious one. Even with regard to the other charges that the entries were not made in the records and she allowed other than the authorized holder to transact the business, the same is in violation of the provisions of the Control Order. In view of the findings recorded by the primary authority with reference to each of the charges in cancelling the fair price shop authorisation granted to the petitioner and as the same were confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As it is stated that during pendency of this Writ Petition, temporary arrangements were made, it is open to the respondents to notify the vacancy afresh and fill the same, in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni