HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6239 of 2007 Date: September 27, 2011 Between: Sri K.Yesuratnam … Petitioner And The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur and others … Respondents Order: Petitioner questions the order dated 24.02.2007 passed in proceedings Rc.No.3/2004-S7, by the 1st respondent- District Collector, dismissing the revision petition filed by him against the order dated 26.06.2003, passed in proceedings A.O.D.Dis.No.69/2002-S7, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, who upheld the order dated 06.09.2002 passed by the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector Guntur, canceling his authorization. Petitioner is a dealer for the fair-price shop of Kodiparru village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District for distribution of essential commodities. In addition to the essential commodities which were being supplied by him, he was also entrusted with the work of distributing rice under the Food For Work programme. On the ground that there was shortage of stock of 35.80 quintals when his shop was inspected on 03.08.2002, proceedings were initiated and his authorization was suspended vide proceedings dated 04.08.2002 and a show-cause notice was issued calling for his explanation. It is alleged that the petitioner has received a quantity of 69.35 quintals of rice, but he has distributed only 33.5 quintals of rice; as such there is shortage of 35.80 quintals of rice and the said shortage is not properly explained. The petitioner has filed explanation to the show-cause notice on 26.08.2002. In the explanation, while admitting that he has received 69.35 quintals of rice, it is stated that after receipt of coupons from the A.E. (PR), he has distributed 33.55 quintals to the labourers and workers under the Food For Work programme and the works were completed in the month of May, 2002. He pleaded that many times the labourers approached him, but they were asked to bring the coupons from the Sarpanch and the officers concerned. It is stated that on 14.07.2002, there was a fire accident and the workers under the Food For Work Programme were also the victims. It is further stated that the said workers came along with the Sarpanch and asked the AE (PR) for coupons and on the ground that printed coupons were not available, the petitioner was asked to distribute the rice; so he distributed the quantity of 34.30 quintals of rice to the workers in the presence of the Sarpanch and other village elders by name Sri Borugadda Saloman, Chinnan Nagabhushanam, Nanderi Nagaiah and Sri Cheekati Yesudas. In the explanation, the petitioner has categorically pleaded that, by distributing so, he did not commit any mischief and such distribution was made on the instructions of the Sarpanch and other village elders. In spite of such explanation of the petitioner, the primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector, Guntur District, without recording any finding with regard to the said explanation and merely on the ground that the instructions issued by the Government are not followed, ordered for cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has raised similar grounds before the appellate and revisional authorities, they have not given any consideration and simply confirmed the order of the primary authority. This Court, at the stage of admission, by order dated, 29.03.2007, suspended the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.02.2007. It is stated that pursuant thereto, the petitioner is being continued as dealer. Though the writ petition is of the year 2007, no counter- affidavit is filed controverting the allegations made by the petitioner. A reading of any of the orders impugned herein would not indicate any finding recorded on the explanation offered by the petitioner. When it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he distributed the stock of 34.30 quintals of rice to the workers under the Food For Work programme in the presence of the Sarpanch and other village elders, the primary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the plea of the petitioner and recorded a finding thereon and without doing so, he passed order canceling the authorization of the petitioner in a routine manner, which is confirmed in appeal and revision by the appellate and revisional authorities, again, in a routine manner without considering the plea of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 24.02.2007 passed in proceedings Rc.No.3/2004-S7, by the 1st respondent-District Collector, the order dated 26.06.2003, passed in proceedings A.O.D.Dis.No.69/2002/S7, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector and the order dated 06.09.2002 passed by the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector Guntur, are hereby quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents-authorities to continue supply of essential commodities to the fair-price shop of the petitioner based on his authorization. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 27, 2011 MRR