THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23296 OF 2007 DATED 13TH APRIL, 2011 BETWEEN T.Vasudeva Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23296 OF 2007 ORDER: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, by proceedings dated 27.06.2005, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization in respect of the fair price shop of Chinnapolamada Village of Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District. The same stood confirmed in appeal under the order dated 14.03.2006 of the Joint Collector, Anantapur, and thereafter in revision, by order dated 05.10.2007 of the District Collector, Anantapur. Hence, this writ petition. This Court, by order dated 05.11.2007, while admitting the writ petition, directed that appointment of a permanent dealer for the subject shop, if made, would be subject to the result of this case. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, had issued show cause notice dated 05.10.2004 detailing four charges against the petitioner and called for his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 12.10.2004 and after considering the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, passed orders dated 27.06.2005 holding that the four charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved and accordingly cancelled his fair price shop authorization. On appeal, the Joint Collector, Anantapur, after considering the grounds of appeal and the record and after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. The revisionary authority, the District Collector, Anantapur, by order dated 05.10.2007, confirmed the appellate authority’s order. The petitioner was thus unsuccessful in his challenge to the cancellation of his fair price shop authorization before the appellate as well as the revisionary authorities. Sri Nasaraiah Golla, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the authorities below did not apply their minds while passing the orders impugned. The learned counsel pointed out that the order passed by the revisionary authority was not a speaking order and did not reflect independent application of mind. Arguments were also advanced on factual aspects. Unless the facts demonstrate complete non-application of mind or perversity in the approach of the authorities, this Court would not venture in to the factual realm. No such occasion arises in the present case. This Court would therefore not sit in appeal over the impugned proceedings while exercising writ jurisdiction. The factual aspects are therefore eschewed from consideration. In so far as the petitioner’s contention with regard to the alleged lapses on the part of the revisionary authority is concerned, it is pertinent to note that a statutory authority cannot be expected to pass orders on par with a Judgment of a Court of law. Lacking in legal finesse and training, such an expectation cannot be reposed in a statutory authority. As long as the order passed by such an authority reflects application of mind and records reasons, it would meet the requirement of law. In the present case the revisionary authority, having duly extracted the reasons given by the appellate authority for confirming the positive findings returned by the primary authority on the charges framed against the petitioner, concluded by saying that there was no infirmity in the said order and accordingly affirmed the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. Once the revisionary authority expressed agreement with the reasoning of the appellate authority, there was no necessity for the revisionary authority to set out reasons afresh at length. This contention must therefore fail. Viewed thus, the orders impugned in the writ petition do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 13TH APRIL, 2011. VGSR/PGS