IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO.6469 OF 2008 Date:08-02-2011 Between:- Ilavarapu Esteru Rani .. Petitioner And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Ongole, Prakasam District and others .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner assails the cancellation of her fair price shop dealership of Valaparla village, Prakasam District under the order dated 07-12-2006 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, which was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, Prakasam District by order dated 03-04-2007 and thereafter, in revision, by the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District by order dated 14-03-2008. 2. The petitioner was appointed as the permanent fair price shop dealer of Valaparla village in the year 1998. While so, upon a complaint made by the villagers, an inspection was made of the fair price shop by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki. He submitted a report on 09-10-2006. This report reflected that the petitioner was not residing in the village and that she had shifted to Vijayawada after her marriage. The petitioner’s father was found to be running the fair price shop as a benami dealer and distributing essential commodities at higher rates. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner under letter dated 23-10-2006. After considering her explanation dated 20-11-2006, the primary authority, being the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole passed the order dated 07-12-2006 holding that it was established beyond doubt that the petitioner was not residing in the village and that a benami dealer was operating in her place. He accordingly cancelled her authorisation to function as the fair price shop dealer of Valaparla village. The petitioner proved unsuccessful in her appeal and revision against this order of cancellation before the higher authorities. Hence, she filed this writ petition. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, a card holder of the subject fair price shop got impleaded as respondent No.5 in the writ petition, contesting the petitioner’s claims. 4. Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the cancellation of his client’s authorisation as a fair price shop dealer was not justified on facts. Learned counsel is however not in a position to show, even at this stage, an iota of documentary proof in evidence of his client being a resident of Valaparla village. Leaving aside the allegation that her father was functioning as a benami dealer and was distributing the essential commodities at higher rates, the petitioner would first have to substantiate that she was still a resident of the village and that she was, in fact, distributing the essential commodities as claimed by her. However, the petitioner is unable to cross this first hurdle. Further, Sri N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, stated that when he took out personal notice to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due upon the implead petition filed by his client in the present writ petition, the said letter was returned with the endorsement that the addressee was not residing in the village. The letter is produced for the perusal of the Court. 5. Viewed thus, the finding of the authorities that the petitioner was not residing in the village for which she had been granted the fair price shop dealership is established on facts and clearly justifies the cancellation of the petitioner’s dealership. 6. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 8th February, 2011 AMD