THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10312 of 2006 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer for Kankanampadu Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District, has questioned order, dated 03.04.2006, passed by the first respondent/revisional authority – District Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam at Ongole, in Rc.Cs2/3591/2005. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Kankanampadu Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District, about 20 years ago and since then, she has been functioning as such without any scope for allegations. Her fair price shop authorisation is governed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. Pursuant to the inspection made by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri, into her fair price shop on 30.09.2004, a report was submitted by him alleging that she has committed certain irregularities by selling the commodities at higher rates and with lesser quantities, to the cardholders and there are some variations in the stocks available in the shop. Based on the said report, the third respondent/primary authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, by his order, dated 09.08.2005, in RCF.2526/2004, cancelled her fair price shop authorisation. As against the same, she carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent/appellate authority – Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole, who in turn, by taking note of lifting the stock of 278 kgs of rice subsequently by the Head Master, Mandal Parishad Primary School of Kankanampadu Village, who issued a certificate to that effect, though the primary authority found that it was an excess stock, and by recording a finding that there is no authenticated record to show that the petitioner has lifted kerosene for May and July, 2004, so as to prove that she diverted the said stock to the black market, allowed the appeal by his order, dated 23.09.2005, in Rc.CS2/3206/2005. Aggrieved by the same, the supply cardholder filed a revision and the first respondent/revisional authority without discussing anything on merits and recording any independent finding, only on the ground that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing, has set aside the order of the second respondent/appellate authority. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the orders passed by the primary, appellate and revisional authorities. From a perusal of the orders passed by the primary and appellate authorities, it is evident that though the primary authority was not convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the appellate authority in view of additional material placed before him the certificate issued by the Head Master, M.P.Primary School, Kankanampadu Village, to the effect that 278 kgs of rice allotted for the said school was not lifted and subsequently, the same was supplied to it, and also the material to show that the petitioner has not lifted and diverted the kerosene to the black market for May and July, 2004, has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. When the appellate authority recorded such findings, the revisional authority has allowed the revision by the impugned order only on the ground that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing. It is to be noticed that there are no valid findings recorded by the revisional authority in the impugned order to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority. In any event, it is to be noted that pending the writ petition also, the order passed by the first respondent was suspended and the petitioner is continuing as a fair price shop dealer. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any independent finding recorded by the revisional authority in the impugned order, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order by restoring order, dated 23.09.2005. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and order, dated 03.04.2006, passed by the first respondent/revisional authority, is set aside by restoring order, dated 23.09.2005, passed by the second respondent/appellate authority. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni