THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2650 of 2011 Dated 09th February, 2011 Between: M.Kristappa …Petitioner And The Collector & District Magistrate, Anantapur and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 11.01.2011, of respondent No.1, confirming orders, dated 15.12.2009 and 12.01.2009, of respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. I have heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner was fair price shop dealer of Kodipalli Village, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur District. On the basis of an inspection of his shop, the following charges were framed: “1. that the F.P. Shop Dealer used to run the F.P. Shop in unnumbered shed at the outskirts of the Village, which is unauthorised, 2. that the F.P. Shop Dealer failed to maintain the stock cum sales board, 3. that the F.P. Shop Dealer distributed the essential commodities at under weighment, 4. that the F.P. Shop Dealer misused 44 kgs. of rice and 110 litres of K.Oil and 5. that the F.P. Shop Dealer failed to run the Fair Price Shop as per the time frame prescribed by the Government and thereby caused much inconvenience to the cardholders.” After enquiry, respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner’s authorisation vide order, dated 12.01.2009. This order was confirmed in appeal by respondent No.2 in his order, dated 15.12.2009. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 also having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of respondent Nos.1 to 3, rendered in their respective orders, are not based on proper evidence. I have carefully considered this submission. Among the charges framed against the petitioner, charge Nos.3 and 4 are serious in nature. Respondent No.1, in his order, has observed with reference to charge No.1, that the Revenue Inspector, Lepakshi has inspected the shop on 17.10.2006 and during his local enquiry, 100 cardholders have given written statements that the petitioner was distributing rice with less weighment and that with regard to sugar, he was distributing through measurement instead of weighment. This act of the petitioner was termed as contrary to guideline No.12(xviii) (a) annexed to G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06.10.2003. As regards charge No.4, respondent No.1 has categorically found that while during inspection, it was found that stock register has contained entries of 42.42 quintals of rice and 174 litres of kerosene oil, whereas on physical verification, only 41.23 quintals of rice and 64 litres of kerosene oil was found as ground balance and that thus, there is shortage of 44 kgs of rice and 110 litres of kerosene oil. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is trite, is not appellate in nature. This Court exercises the power of judicial review in order to find out whether the orders passed by the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies conform to the legal principles and whether they are vitiated by non-application of mind or suffer from patent illegalities or procedural impropriety. The findings rendered by respondent Nos.1 to 3 are based on evidence available on record, such as inspection report, statement of the cardholders recorded during enquiry etc. It cannot therefore be said that these findings are without any basis. As noted above, charge Nos.3 and 4 are serious in nature and all the charges were held proved. In the light of these facts, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3291 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th February, 2011 VGB