IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24301 of 2003 Between: P. Manohar Naidu S/o P.P. Narayanappa R/o Ganaganapalli village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in D.Dis.K4/ATP/5512/99 dated 16-6- 2003 conﬁrming the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondent passed in D.Dis K4/ATP/4790/98 dated 24-6-1999 and D.Dis.No. D1/CS/471/98 dated 21-5-1998 as illegal arbitrary and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem ﬁt and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24301 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner was fair price shop (FPS) dealer of Ganaganapalli Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. On a report submitted by Inspector of Police (Vigilance Cell), third respondent initiated action under clause 3(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (Control Order, for brevity). As many as six charges were framed based on the report of the Inspector of Police as well as Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer(MRO), fourth respondent herein. After receiving the show-cause notice dated 26.03.1998 the petitioner submitted explanation on 02.04.1998. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO), third respondent herein, conducted enquiry duly aﬀording personal hearing on three occasions. After doing so, by an order dated 21.05.1998 RDO cancelled the dealership of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal under clause 17(1) of Control Order before second respondent, which was dismissed on 24.06.1999. The petitioner again preferred a revision under clause 18 of Control Order before ﬁrst respondent, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.06.2003. A counter-affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was no speciﬁc charge of non-distribution of rice and sugar to twenty-two cardholders, the appellate authority/revisional authority proceeded on that premise which vitiates the impugned order. Secondly it is submitted that the charges against the petitioner are of trivial in nature and therefore, penalty of cancellation of authorization is arbitrary and irrational. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that the allegation of non-supply of rice to twenty-two cardholders was not part of the show-cause notice and therefore, a separate charge was not framed thereon and he did not conﬁrm the basis for cancellation of authorization. After taking this Court through the orders of original authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority, he submits that the orders of cancellation of authorization were based on ﬁndings on the charges and not on the allegation made in subsequent report of MRO with regard to alleged non-distribution of rice and sugar to twenty-two cardholders. Lastly he submits that in proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity), for conﬁscation of the stocks, the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2000, was allowed on 17.06.2003 setting aside the order of conﬁscation passed by the Joint Collector under Section 6-A of the Act and therefore, there cannot be cancellation of authorization. After receiving the report of the Inspector of Police (Vigilance Cell), third respondent framed the following charges. Charge No.1:- That the F.P.Shop dealer has failed to maintain the true and correct F.P.Shop accounts. Thereby the F.P.Shop dealer has contravened the condition No.4(1) and 11 of authorization issued under A.P.Licence and regulation order, 1983. Charge No.2:- That the F.P.Shop dealer has not maintained stock and sales registers for the commodities of wheat and K.Oil. Thereby, the above F.P.Shop dealer has contravened condition No.3 of licence issued to F.P.Shop dealer under control orders. Charge No.3:- That the F.P.Shop dealer has failed to produce the licences of FGL, K.Oil licences and authorization before the inspecting officers. Therefore, the F.P.Shop dealer has violated clause 3 read with clause 4 of (L&D) Order, 1977. Charge No.4:- During the inspection of F.P.Shop by vigilance authorities huge variations are noticed as follows.______ Commodity Book balance Ground balance Variations_ 1. Rice 38.54 35.70 2.84(Shortage) 2.Sugar 2.95 2.89 0.06( ”) 3.K.Oil -- 0.50 litres 0.50 Litres(Excess) Charge No.5:- That the above F.P.Shop dealer has failed to exhibit the stock cum price list board with details in front of the F.P.Shop. Hence, the above F.P.Shop dealer has violated condition No.8 of licence, clause No.3 of A.P. Order, 1966 and condition No.8(1) of A.P.P.P. (L&RS) Order, 1980. Charge No.6:- That the above F.P.Shop dealer has failed to handover the Nutrition Rice to the concerned Head Masters of Muchukuntepalli, and Ganganapalli Villages for the month of March, 1998. Hence, contravened the instructions of the Govt. under NPNSPE Scheme. Except charge No.5 all other charges cannot be termed as trivial. Under the conditions of authorization every FPS dealer is required to maintain stock and sales register and accounts of the shop. Any contravention of such conditions would entail in penal consequences including cancellation of authorization. When the inspecting team visited FPS, the petitioner failed to produce foodgrain licence and kerosene oil licence which itself is of serious nature. On all these charges original authority as well as appellate authority found the charges proved. The decision as to whether charges are proved or not is a question of fact. When all the authorities have taken a view that charges framed are proved, ordinarily judicial review would not lie. A Division Bench of this Court to which I was a member in T. Edukondalu v R.D.O. [1] considered a similar question and held as under. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the orders of the Primary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, are perverse. We have gone through the entire material placed before us. In our opinion the authorities have come to the correct conclusion with regard to the three contraventions alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the ﬁnding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court. That on a reappreciation of evidence it is always possible for this Court to come to a diﬀerent conclusion by itself is not a ground for judicial review. Suﬃciency or insuﬃciency of reasons is not a ground for judicial review. Therefore, this ground is also liable to be rejected. The submission that a favourable order under Section 6-C of the Act disentitles RDO to cancel authorization if wholly misconceived. The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are altogether diﬀerent and are intended for conﬁscation of the goods sold for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the relevant Control Order. The procedure for cancellation of authorization of FPS dealer is altogether different. In a given case even where the competent appellate authority/Court under Section 6-C of the Act disinclines to conﬁscate the stocks, still there can be separate procedure for cancellation of authorization. I n G. Anjaneyulu v Collector (CS), Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar[2] it was held as under. The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated against the petitioner before the first respondent. Two charges, namely he was indulging in clandestine business in relation to the commodities meant for public distribution and that he misappropriated certain quantities of PDS rice and kerosene oil meant for the distribution in the month of August, 2004, were framed against him. The petitioner responded to the notice and submitted his explanation. Not being satisﬁed with the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent directed conﬁscation of the commodities seized from the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the same, he has to avail the remedy of appeal provided for under Section 6-C of the Act. In addition to directing conﬁscation of the seized commodities, the ﬁrst respondent directed that the petitioner be removed from the dealership of the fair price shop. In this context, it needs to be seen that appointment of dealers for fair price shops and other matters relating thereto are governed by the Control Order, 2001. The third respondent is the appointing authority. It is he who is conferred with the power either to appoint a person as a dealer or to cancel the dealership. Mere conﬁscation of essential commodities in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act cannot by itself result in cancellation of the dealership. For that purpose, separate and independent proceedings have to be initiated by the competent authority, viz., the third respondent. The third submission of the petitioner is also without any merit. A perusal of the orders of original authority, appellate authority and revisional authority would show that passingly they referred to subsequent report of MRO wherein it was alleged that the petitioner failed to supply rice and sugar to twenty-two cardholders. It was not the basis for any charge nor it is possible to infer that the said fact weighed with the authorities. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is rejected and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15th October, 2008 GHN To 1 The District Collector, Anantapur 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District 5 2CCs to GP for Civil Supplies 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VVS} [1] 1999(5) ALT 600 (D.B.) [2] 2005(2) ALD 27