HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28869 of 2008 Date : 22.11.2011 Between : B. Rosaiah. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28869 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the proceedings, dated 28.02.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector in Proceedings Rc.No.D/103/06, by which, the licence granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licencing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980, was cancelled on certain allegations, and the further order, dated 17.04.2008, passed by the appellate authority/1st respondent-Commissioner in Proceedings No.E2/8727/2007, confirming the order of the primary authority. The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Madhira has submitted a report to the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, stating that when he inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 05.05.2006, it was found that the petitioner was not maintaining the stock registers properly, for the three villages for which he was a kerosene dealer and that there was also shortage of 402 litres of kerosene when the book balances were compared with the actual ground balances. Based on the aforesaid report, the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain as to why his licence should not be cancelled. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has filed his explanation on 13.10.2006. In the said explanation, with regard to variation in stock, it is stated that during summer, when the inspection was made, as the kerosene drums were kept outside for distribution, there was evaporation, and hence, there was shortage in stocks. He denied the allegation that he was not maintaining the records properly. The primary authority, by recording a finding that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not convincing, has passed the impugned order of cancellation, which was also confirmed by the appellate authority. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is no material in proof of the allegations made against the petitioner that he is not maintaining the records properly and that there was shortage of stock. It is further contended that the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, was not furnished to him before passing the order of cancellation. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondents that the petitioner has failed to submit valid explanation for shortage of 402 litres of kerosene, and further, as he is not maintaining proper records for the three villages, the impugned order of cancellation is passed, and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. In this case, it is to be noticed that the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar is only a seizure report, but it is not any report of inquiry conducted in the matter, therefore, non-furnishing of such report to the petitioner is not a ground to invalidate the order of cancellation. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the dates of delivery of kerosene were not mentioned in the books of account by the date of inspection i.e. 05.05.2006, the same is not the ground taken in the explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice. The shortage was sought to be explained by the petitioner stating that there was evaporation of kerosene during summer, as the drums were kept outside. However, he failed to explain before the authorities, the reasons for not mentioning the dates of delivery of kerosene. Evaporation of 402 litres of kerosene, as sought to be explained by the petitioner, is rightly disbelieved by the respondents. Further, it is to be noticed that inspite of specific allegations made against the petitioner that he failed to maintain the records properly, he has not chosen to file such books of account before this Court, showing the village-wise details of delivery as on the date of inspection. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of cancellation, as confirmed by the appellate authority, so as to interfere with the same in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd November 2011 Tsy/ajr