IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 663 of 2008 Between: Thota Janardhana Rao S/o. Santaiah R/o. D.No.5-25, Nangegadda village Nagayalanka Mandal Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Machilipatnam Krishna district 4 The Tahasildar, Nagayalanka Mandal at Nagayalanka Krishna District 5 Sri B.Sambasiva Rao S/o. Rajarao R/o. D.No.4-36, Nangegadda village Nagayalanka Mandal Krishna District .....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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandaus declaring the order issued by 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc.B1/SRA/6/2007 dated 17.10.2007 as conﬁrmed by the 1st respondent in Rc.B1/RP.3/2007 dated 11.12.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said proceedings and further direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to continue the petitioner as FP Shop Dealer of shop No.2 of Nangegadda village, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna district and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 663 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for Respondents 1 to 4 and Sri V.V.L.N. Sharma for the 5th respondent The writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2007 of the 1st respondent rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against an order of the 2nd respondent, dated 17.10.2007, whereby, in an appeal preferred by the 5th respondent herein, the authorization granted to the petitioner on 12.2.2007 for the fair price shop at Nangegadda Village, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna District, has been set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not the resident of the Village. The 3rd respondent was directed in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 17.10.2007, to issue a fresh notiﬁcation for ﬁlling up the consequent vacancy of the fair price shop, Nangegadda and to make alternative arrangement for distribution of the essential commodities. The 3rd respondent issued a notiﬁcation dated 24.1.2007 calling for applications for grant of authorization for the fair price shop in Nangegadda Village. Seven applications were received including of the petitioner and the 5th respondent herein. On a consideration of the respective merits of the applicants, the 3rd respondent granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner by proceedings dated 12.2.2007. Aggrieved by this order, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and on a consideration of the material on record, the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner is not a resident of Nangegadda Village. For this conclusion, the 2nd respondent relied on the material, i.e., the voters’ list of Nagayalanka Gram Panchayat for the year 2006, which sets out the name of the petitioner at Sl. No.370, further only in the revised voters’ list published on 23.3.2007, the petitioner’s name was deleted from the Nagayalanka voters’ list. Thus, on the date of the notiﬁcation i.e., 24.1.2007 and the date of grant of authorization, i.e., 12.2.2007, the petitioner was officially a voter of Nagayalanka. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.10.2007, allowing the appeal of the 5th respondent and cancelling the petitioner’s authorisation dated 12.2.2007, the petitioner preferred a revision to the 1st respondent, which by the order dated 11.12.2007, was rejected. The 1st respondent concurred with the conclusions recorded by the 2nd respondent as also with the order cancelling the authorization of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Nangegadda Village. On a consideration of the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities dated 17.10.2007 and 11.12.2007 respectively, this Court discerns no inﬁrmity warranting interference. The 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent are quasi judicial Tribunals, which are required to record conclusions on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The appropriate standard of judicial review is that the decision of a quasi judicial authority would be interfered only if the orders or conclusions are based on no evidence or if the analysis of the evidence is perverse. None of these two tests are satisﬁed warranting invalidation of the appellate and revisional orders of the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent. On the aforesaid analysis, no interference is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 1st August, 2008 pnb