IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18139 of 2003 Between: Sarika Pydi Naidu, S/o. late Rama Swamy, R/o. Kondagandredu Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Joint Collector and Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Vizianagaram District. 3 The Collector and Dist. Magistrate, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 23.10.02 in R.C.485/02-G8 on the file of the third respondent by issuing a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the same in the interest of justice, consequently to restore the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18139 of 2003 ORDER: Petitioner’s fair price shop dealership was cancelled by the 1st respondent through proceedings, dated 27-02-2002, after issuing show cause notice and after considering the explanation on the ground that the petitioner misappropriated the rice meant for Food for Work Programme in collusion with the Sarpanch and Ex-Sarpanch instead of distributing to the wage earners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent through order, dated 28- 05-2002, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent through order, dated 23-10-2002 dismissed the revision. Questioning the said revisional order, this writ petition has been filed. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the petitioner himself admitted before the revisional Authority that he has given entire quantity of rice to the middlemen i.e., Sarpanch and Upasarpanch of the Village, instead of distributing to the wage earners and the rice was distributed by the middlemen. The revisional Authority held that the petitioner himself admitted that he has not distributed the rice to the wage earners as per the coupons issued by the Executive Agency and, therefore, the petitioner has violated the Government instructions and encouraged for diverting of rice, which was supplied by the Government with a noble aim of creating employment in drought areas and hence, the nature of offence committed by the petitioner is serious and grave in nature and accordingly dismissed the revision upholding the orders of the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the courts below rightly held that the petitioner violated the instructions issued by the Government. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise, so as to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 08-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}