HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.28244 of 2007 Date: October 11, 2011 Between: Smt.V.Nirmala, W/o.Kiran … Petitioner And The District Collector (CS) Nalgonda District, Nalgonda and others … Respondents Order: Petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 12.02.2007 passed in Case No.CS1/1350/2007 by the 1st respondent-District Collector (CS) Nalgonda, confirming the order dated 03.09.2007 passed in Case No.CS1/758/2007, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, whereby he affirmed the order dated 10.04.2007, passed in proceedings No.K/3226/06, by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. Petitioner is a dealer for the fair price shop of Inupamula village, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. On 14.11.2006 when she was transporting 400 Ltrs. (16 cans) of Kerosene meant for public distribution, villagers had caught hold of the same and reported to the authorities. Consequently, the District Task Force Team, Civil Supplies Department, Nalgonda, inspected the shop of the petitioner on 15.11.2006 and seized the available quantity of kerosene. Thereafter, the seized stock was stored by the authorities in drums, but, it appears, the petitioner has tampered with the seals and poured water into the drums. On the said allegations, by issuing show-cause notice dated 06.02.2006 and after considering the explanation offered, her authorization was cancelled by the primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent-RDO by order dated 10.04.2007. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector as per clause 20 of the A.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) but the appellate authority dismissed the same by order dated 03.09.2007. Petitioner further carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent-District Collector under clause 21 of the Control Order, who, by his order dated 12.12.2007, dismissed the same. Questioning the order passed by the primary authority, as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, this writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the orders impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is an allegation of adulteration of kerosene against the petitioner, the primary authority, without sending the samples to an expert, has passed order dated 10.04.2007 cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner, which is confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is to be noticed that apart from the allegation of adulteration of kerosene with water, by tampering with the seals put by the authorities, petitioner along with her husband was caught red-handedly by the villagers while transporting 400 Ltrs. (16 cans) of kerosene meant for public distribution. In view of the said serious allegation and also the allegation of tampering with the seals after seizure of stock, the primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent-RDO, by issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner and after considering her explanation, passed order dated 10.04.2007 cancelling her authorisation. The appellate and revisional authorities have considered the matter in detail and confirmed the order of cancellation passed by the primary authority. Having regard to the nature of allegations against the petitioner, which are found proved by the primary authority and affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities by recording valid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 11, 2011 MRR