IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, the 25th day of August, 2011 Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy W.P.No. 7247 of 2008 Between: B. Konappa …Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor …Respondent The Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy W.P.No. 7247 of 2008 O r d e r In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the validity of the order passed by the respondent – the District Collector, Chittoor in D.Dis.No.C1/983/97 dated:8.2.2008 in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution Control Order, 2001 confirming the order of cancellation passed by the Sub Collector, Madanapalli, as confirmed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor. 2. The petitioner was the dealer for distribution of essential commodities of Mallela village, PTM Mandal, Chittoor District. On the allegations that the petitioner has distributed lesser quantities of rice to the card holders; he was selling essential commodities at higher rates than the rates fixed by the Government; he was making false entries in the sales registers and that he has not distributed P.Oil in the months of August and September, 1995, the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by the Sub Collector, Madanapalli vide order dated:4-1-1996 in proceedings No.G/8610/95. 3. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Joint Collector, who by order dated:20.8.1996 passed in proceedings D.Dis.S1/1639/96 dismissed the appeal and as against which the petitioner preferred revision before the District Collector, Chittoor. The District Collector by the impugned order dismissed the revision of the petitioner, confirming the orders of cancellation. 5. In this writ petition, the contention advanced by the petitioner is that there is no evidence on record in respect of the allegations made against him. A perusal of the order of the Sub Collector, which is produced when the matter is taken up for hearing, reveals that the enquiry was conducted by the Sub Collector in view of the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, PTM Mandal in Rc.No.678 of 1995 dated:20.10.1995. The primary authority having considered the explanation, recorded a finding that the petitioner was selling the commodities at lesser quantities for higher rates and also did not distribute P. Oil during the months of August and September, 1995. In view of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the findings recorded by the primary authority, it cannot be said that there is no material to cancel the authorization granted to the petitioner. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Dated:25-08-2011. *BVS