HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19433 of 2008 Date : 07.09.2011 Between : T.V. Reddeppa. …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Chittoor & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19433 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 27.02.2008, issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector in Proceedings D.Dis.No.C1/2705/2000, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, confirming the proceedings of Sub-Collector, Madanapalle, dated 21.05.2000, issued in D.Dis.No.S1/4767/99, by which, the authorization granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was given authorization to run the fair price shop in Ramapuram village. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gurramkonda Mandal, proceedings were initiated to cancel the authorization of petitioner on the ground that he failed to run the shop by himself and handed over it to one Mr.T.Obullappa. Though the petitioner denied the same in the explanation filed by him, the primary authority, by recording a finding that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not correct in view of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and also on the ground that the petitioner was not lifting the stocks of essential commodities every month and one Sri T.Obullappa was transacting the business on his behalf, has cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which was dismissed and the further revision carried before the District Collector, Chittoor, was also ended in dismissal by the impugned order, dated 27.02.2008, issued in Proceedings D.Dis.No.C1/2705/2000. Hence, this writ petition. At the time of admission, by way of interim order, this Court directed the respondents not to make any permanent arrangement, pending disposal of the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the temporary dealer, who was appointed, is being continued in view of pendency of the writ petition. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is no valid reason for passing the impugned order of cancellation. I have perused the order passed by the Sub- Collector, Madanapalle. A perusal of the findings recorded in the said order reveal that when there was an inspection of the petitioner’s shop by the Additional Revenue Inspector, it was found that the petitioner was not transacting the business in the shop, but one Mr.Obullappa was transacting the business. Added to this, it was also noticed that the petitioner was not lifting the commodities, and on his behalf, the said Obullappa was drawing the commodities from the stock releasing point. I have also perused the order of the revisional authority, who has particularly recorded a finding that when the petitioner’s shop was inspected, it was found that one Obullappa was transacting the business. In view of the reasons recorded by the primary authority as well as the revisional authority, it cannot be said that the charge framed against the petitioner is not true. When the petitioner is not drawing the commodities and when he was not found in the shop when inspection was made, it cannot be said that the petitioner was running the fair price shop. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. It is open for the respondents to fill up the vacancy of fair price shop dealer on regular basis, in accordance with law. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th September 2011 ajr