IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14466 of 2009 Between: Nakirekanti Kailasam, S/o.Anjaiah, Solipuram Village, Munugole Mandal, NALGONDA. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 2 The Joint Collector, Nalgonda,Nalgonda District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda,Nalgonda District. 4 The Tahsildar, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.K.RAJITHA Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for setting aside order, dated 26.04.2008 passed by respondent No.3 and orders, dated 20.10.2008 and 11.06.2009 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively, confirming the order of respondent No.3. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Solipuram Village, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District. Respondent No.3 issued show cause notice, dated 19.03.2008 wherein five charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.04.2008 denying all those five charges. By order, dated 26.04.2008, respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. The said order having been confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In his order, respondent No.3 stated that on 13.03.2008, the petitioner took delivery of 100 liters of kerosene as against the quota of 314 liters from the wholesale kerosene dealer at Ramakrishnapuram; that some villagers intercepted the petitioner when he was taking the said stock to Solipuram, where his fair price shop is situated; that as per the orders of the Government, the fair price shop dealer shall distribute kerosene in the same Village for which the supply of kerosene was meant and that taking delivery of kerosene at Ramakrishnapuram is illegal. Respondent No.3 further stated that it was proved that the petitioner sold kerosene at Rs.10/- per liter instead of Rs.9.50ps and that during December, 2007, the closing stock was shown as nil, in January, 2008 as 10 liters and in February, 2008 as 20 liters, but a perusal of the ration cards of the consumers showed that in December 2007, 51 liters were distributed, in January 2008, 9 liters were distributed and in February 2008, 81 liters were distributed. Respondent No.3 also stated that the local enquiries with the cardholders revealed that the petitioner was tearing the coupons even before supplies were made and that in the month of February, 2008 as against 321 liters, the petitioner distributed only 31 liters, submitted coupons for 210 liters only in the Office of Tahsildar and failed to submit coupons for 91 liters. On these grounds, respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation. The petitioner filed a copy of explanation submitted to the show cause notice wherein he gave a detailed explanation for each of the above-mentioned charges. But, respondent No.3 failed to consider any of the aspects mentioned in the explanation and made a cryptic observation that the aspects mentioned in the petitioner’s explanation are not satisfactory. Undoubtedly, the action of cancellation of fair price shop authorization results in serious adverse consequences. Therefore, it is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to refer to and discuss in detail the contents of the explanation and detailed reasons have to be recorded for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner. By brushing aside the explanation of the petitioner in one sentence, respondent No.3 cannot reject the explanation. Such an approach constitutes patent arbitrariness and irrationality. Even respondent Nos.1 and 2 while confirming the order of respondent No.3 have not given any reasons. Respondent No.2 in his order referred to the explanation of the petitioner, but however, he ultimately dealt with only one aspect of the explanation, namely, the reason for the petitioner to take delivery of kerosene at Ramakrishnapuram. He also failed to deal with the explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of other charges, such as, short distribution of kerosene to the villagers and his failure to produce coupons before the Tahsildar evidencing distribution of kerosene. The order of respondent No.1 is equally cryptic and laconic. He merely confirmed the orders of respondent Nos.3 and 2 without specifically going into the acceptability or otherwise of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the orders of respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be sustained in law and are accordingly, quashed. The fair price shop authorization of the petitioner is restored. Respondent No.3 is permitted to pass a fresh order after considering the detailed explanation of the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th JULY, 2009. kvni