HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24694 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer, filed this Writ Petition questioning the order, dated 23.12.2006, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, in proceedings vide Rc.No.K3/APT/837/2008, cancelling his fair price shop authorization, which was confirmed by the second respondent-Joint Collector, Ananthapur, in proceedings vide D.Dis.No.K4/ATP/791/06, dated 28.04.2008, and also in revision, by the first respondent- The District Collector, Ananthapur, in proceedings vide Rc.No.K3/APT/837/2008 dated 01.09.2008. The petitioner was granted fair price shop authorization for distribution of essential commodities in Bethapally Village, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapur District. It appears, some cardholders of Bethapally Village had given a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer alleging that the petitioner committed certain irregularities, based upon which, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry and a show cause notice, dated 23.12.2006, was issued, framing four charges against the petitioner, which read as under: - “Charge No.1: That the F.P.Shop dealer is distributing K.Oil at the rate of Rs.10.00 per litre instead of Rs.9.50 and Rice and Rs.5.50 per kg instead of Rs.5.25 per kg. Thereby, the F.P. Shop dealer has violated the condition No.7 of authorization issued under APSPDS (Control) Order, 2001. Charge No.2: That the F.P.Shop dealer is distributing K.Oil at the rate of 2 litres per card instead of 3 litres. Thereby, the F.P. Shop dealer has violated Cl.22(iii) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2001. Charge No.3: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not handed over coupons for 207 quintals of F.F.W. rice and the physical balance of 55.50 quintals of FFW rie are only available in the F.P.Shop. Thereby, the F.P. Shop dealer failed to show either 202 quintals of FFW rice physically or relevant coupons to the inspecting authority. It clearly shows that the F.P.Shop dealer has diverted 202 quintals of FFW rice to the black market for his pecuniary gains. Thereby, he has violated Cl.17(b) of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2001. Charge No.4: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not maintained stock register and acquaintance register for FFW rice and not accounted for 202 quintals of FFW rice, thereby he has violated condition No.4 of F.P. Shop authorization issued under APSPDS (Control) Order, 2001.” The petitioner was also called upon to file an explanation to the said charges. Though the explanation was filed by the petitioner for the said charges, the primary authority-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, by recording a finding that the said explanation is not satisfactory, passed the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector, who has confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner further carried the matter in revision to the District Collector, who has also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner, thereby confirming the order of the primary authority. It is submitted by Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondents have not considered the explanation filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned orders in a routine and mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the primary authority had given more weightage to the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, which is an ex parte one and sought to set aside the impugned orders. I have perused the charges levelled against the petitioner, the explanation filed by the petitioner and also the findings recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the order, dated 23.12.2006. Charge Nos.1 and 2 are based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and with reference to charge No.3, there is an allegation that the petitioner has not handed over the coupons to show that he has distributed 207 quintals of rice which was supplied under Food for Work Scheme. Only a quantity of 5.50 quintals of rice was physically found in the fair price shop when the inspection was made. Thereby, it is alleged that the petitioner has diverted the said rice to black market for his pecuniary gains. Though the petitioner has filed explanation to the said charge, he has neither produced the coupons showing the distribution of such rice nor any other material accounting for the said 202 quintals of rice, which was supplied under Food for Work Scheme. On failing to produce any material namely coupons or the accounts with regard to the said 202 quintals of Food for Work rice, the primary authority has rightly held that the said charges framed against the petitioner are proved. With regard to charge No.4 also, the petitioner has not maintained stock register and acquaintance register and he has also not produced any material accounting for the said 202 quintals of rice meant for Food for Work, as such, the primary authority has rightly held that the said charge is proved, which was confirmed by both the appellate and revisional authorities. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, as was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, warranting interference by this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is directed that the respondents shall notify the fair price shop in question afresh and make selections in accordance with the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2008 and the guidelines framed thereunder within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are further directed to make a temporary arrangement in respect of the said fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2011 DR