HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24449 of 2010 Date 01.10.2010 Between: K.Naga Sudha Rani. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri I.Koti Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24449 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 28.10.2009 of respondent No.3 as confirmed in proceedings dated 05.02.2010 and 06.09.2010 of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Gangapalem Village, Ballikurava Mandal, Prakasam District. On the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ballikurava, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of the fair price shop dealership. Initially, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 24.05.2005. Later on, an enquiry was taken up on the following irregularities: 1. That the dealer has made fictitious entries in sales register relating to card holder bearing Nos.38031, 38030, 386224, 386205, 6088, 388060, 47218, 6023, 2620 without giving ECs to card holders. 2. That the dealer has misused quantity of 144 Kgs. of rice and 32 litres of Kerosene Oil in the months of 1/2005 and 2/2005 by making entries in the sales register. 3. That the dealer is distributing the ECs at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry on 17.08.2009 and after perusing the records, respondent No.1 being satisfied that the petitioner had made false entries in the stock register and diverted 1.28 quintals of PDS Rice and 18 litres of Kerosene Oil and, thereby, violating Clause 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner has questioned the said order in appeal before respondent No.2. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 05.02.1010 of respondent No.2. The petitioner has availed the remedy of revision before respondent No.1 questioning the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 dismissed the revision confirming the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the hearing Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client was not given a proper opportunity to represent her case before respondent No.3. A perusal of the order of respondent No.1 shows that this aspect has been properly considered by the said respondent. While dealing with this contention, respondent No.1 has, inter alia, stated as under: “The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole has not furnished the records to her on which charges were framed against her, not given opportunity to represent her case and also failed to verify that the stocks were distributed to the cardholders. The charges against the revision petitioner are that by making fictitious entries in the sales register, she diverted 128 Kgs. of PDS Rice and 18 Ltrs. of PDS Kerosene without distributing to the concerned cardholders and also selling essential commodities at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government. The Disciplinary authority finally posted the case on 17.08.2009 on the request of the revision petitioner but she failed to attend before the disciplinary authority on that date and hence the disciplinary authority passed final orders only after taking into consideration of the explanation filed by the revision petitioner. Hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that no opportunity has not been given is not correct and it is baseless. Further, after conducting enquiry only the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole came to conclusion that the revision petitioner diverted 128 Kgs. PDS Rice and 18 Ltrs. of PDS Kerosene into black market without distributing the same to the cardholders. The other allegation that selling of essential commodities at higher rates is also proved that as the cardholders have given statement to that effect. Further the revision petitioner without asking the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole to furnish the record basis for charges, now pointed out the same that the records were not furnished to her. The other main point raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner is that the variations found by the inspecting officer is for the month of January and February but inspection took place in April, 2005. In this regard, it was observed that there is no bar to inspect or verify the previous months records by the inspecting officers.” As noted above, all the three authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner is guilty of diversion of PDS Rice and Kerosene into black market. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the findings of fact. The petitioner, having failed to avail the opportunity presented to her, is not entitled to raise the plea of lack of opportunity. Having carefully considered the orders passed by all the three hierarchical authorities, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.31295 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01.10.2010 usd