HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8171 of 2008 Date : 26.08.2011 Between : S. Laxmana Rao. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8171 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in Bhimavarappadu village of G.Konduru Mandal in Krishna District. The villagers of Bhimavarappadu have caught hold of 4 bags of rice meant for public distribution system (6 quintals) while being unauthorisedly diverted in Auto bearing No.AP-16-TV-5341 from the shop of the petitioner on 04.09.2006. Immediately on the complaint lodged by the villagers, an inspection was made in the petitioner’s shop and having noticed shortage in actual stocks when compared with the books of account, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of petitioner’s authorization. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada has issued show cause notice to the petitioner, by framing three charges, which read as under : “1. The F.P.Shop dealer has diverted 6 qtls of PDS Rice contained in (12) Bags through Auto No.AP16TV5341 contravening clause 17(c) of A.P.S.P.D.S. Control Order, 2001. 2. There is a shortage of 6.12 qtls of PDS Rice at the F.P.Shop point and the dealer has diverted the stock and failed to maintain true and correct accounts contravening clause 17(a), (b) & (c) and conditions of authorization under APSPDS Control Order, 2001. 3. The dealer is not distributing the Essential Commodities to the card holders and causing inconvenience contravening the conditions of authorization under APSPDS Control Order 2001”. Though explanation was offered by the petitioner to the aforesaid charges, having not satisfied with the said explanation, the impugned order, dated 12th February 2007, was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in Rc.No.A7/1937/2006, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Joint Collector, but he was unsuccessful and an order, dated 24.11.2007 was passed, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and the same was also confirmed by the revisional authority/District Collector, by an order dated 25th February 2008, passed in Proceedings No.B1/RP/01/2008. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner has diverted the stock, his authorization ought not to have been cancelled. Upon a perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the order of the Joint Collector, it is clear that the stock was seized when it was being transported in the Auto bearing No.AP-16-TV-5341. The orders further indicate that when the Auto driver was examined, he deposed that at the instance of petitioner only, the stock belonging to the petitioner was loaded in the Auto for transportation. Further, it is to be noticed that on immediate inspection after the complaint of villagers, respondents have found shortage in stocks when compared with the books of account. The statement recorded by the respondents from the Auto driver, coupled with the shortages found in stocks, clearly establishes the charges framed against the petitioner with regard to illegal diversion of stocks. In view of the reasoned and detailed order passed by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, I do not find any ground for grant of relief as prayed for in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2011 ajr