IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9473 of 2008 BETWEEN T. Venkatappa. ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Chittoor District and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. R. RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner, who is the fair price shop dealer of Yalakallu village, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District, questions the cancellation proceedings of his authorization based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer by framing the following charges as under: CHARGES: 1. The dealer has made false entries as having issued sugar and kerosene to the following cards without actually issuing the same and misused for his personnel benefit: Card Nos:- 157112, 157109, 151510, 157119, 157123, 157111, 157124, 157115, 157110. 2. At the time of inspection by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, there was 23.38 qtls of rice, 5.60 qtls of sugar and 540 litres of kerosene oil as ground balance on 01.05.95 but he has not issued the same to the cardholder during the month of 4/95. 3. The dealer has lifted the following Essential commodities for the month of 4/95 allotted to his F.P. shop. But he has issued only 38.20 qtls of rice. There should be a balance of 22.95 qtls of rice with him as on 29.04.95 but on physical verification there was 23.38 qtls of rice on ground and thus there is an excess stock of 43 Kgs of rice. Commodity Qty. lifted R.O.No. and date Rice Sugar Kerosene 82.00 5.70 600 lts 53450 dt. 16.04.95 53328 dt. 16.04.95 Bill No.296 dt. 19.04.95 4. There are no sales of sugar and kerosene for 4/95 and there was shortage of 10 Kgs of sugar and 60 litres of kerosene as on date of inspect of F.P. shop 2. The petitioner filed his explanation to the aforesaid charges and after considering the same, by recording a finding that charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 were proved, the primary authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, by order dated 09.01.1997 cancelled the authorization of the petitioner. The said order was assailed in an appeal before the Joint Collector, who also dismissed the appeal by order dated 15.05.1997 issued in D.Dis.S1/668/97. The said order was confirmed by the revisional authority under the impugned order dated 12.12.2007. Challenging the aforesaid order of the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, this writ petition is filed. 3. Sri. R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had filed explanation to the aforesaid charges, without considering the same the impugned orders are passed. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that with regard to the charges framed and explanation filed by the petitioner, the primary authority has considered the explanation charge wise by recording its finding and on the ground that charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 are proved, the impugned order is passed. It is submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and revision but in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the charges framed against the petitioner, explanation filed and the finding recorded by the primary as well as appellate and revisional authorities, it is noticed that inspection was made into the shop of the petitioner on 01.05.1995 and with regard to the second charge, it was found that 23.38 quintals of rice, 5.60 quintals of sugar and 540 litres of kerosene was available as ground balance but the dealer has issued only rice to the cardholders but did not issue the other commodities to the cardholders. Even according to the petitioner, he started distribution on 26.04.1995 whereas the release orders were issued on 20.04.1995 and 23.04.1995 for kerosene and other commodities of rice and sugar respectively. Though the commodities were released on 20.04.1995 and 23.04.1995 for distribution, no explanation is offered by the petitioner for not starting the distribution immediately after receiving the commodities. With reference to the second charge, it was held proved. Even with regard to excess stocks of sugar and kerosene under charge No.5, there is no valid explanation filed by the petitioner. 6. Inasmuch as the findings, recorded by the primary authority with regard to the charges framed and explanation filed, which are confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, I do not find any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the vacancy consequent upon the cancellation of authorization of the petitioner is not filled up, as on today, the same shall be filled up within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by following the due procedure under law. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is dismissed with the directions as above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 7, 2011 DSK