IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 935 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/10/2007 in WP NO : 16825 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Goli Sura Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, R/o Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 J.Bhakta Vatsala Reddy, S/o Venkata Appa Reddy, R/o Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 T.Surya Prakasa Reddy, S/o Lakshma Reddy, R/o Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 Ch.Kesava Rao, S/o Appayya, R/o Yerrampalli, Chintalpudi Mandal, W.G.District. 5 Agniparthi Ravi, S/o Pitchayya, R/o Yerrampalli, Chintalpudi Mandal, W.G.District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector, West Gdoavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 J.Janaki Kumari, W/o Vasudeva Reddy, R/o Yerrampalli, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per TGK,J) Questioning the order of suspension i.e., suspending the authorization of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector, though in principle agreed that there is misappropriation of stocks for pecuniary gains, took a lenient view as a first occasion, restored the authorization on condition of the 4th respondent paying the value of the deficit stock of 215 litres of PDS Kerosene and Qtls. 6.48 Kgs of PDS rice in accordance with the provisions of clause 17 (c) of the APSPDS (Control) Order, 2001. The same was challenged by the appellants before the learned single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this writ appeal. Heard the learned counsel. Apparently, the appellants are cardholders and in our view they cannot maintain a writ petition. Further the appellate authority i.e., the Joint Collector had agreed that there is misappropriation, but however using his discretion, took a lenient view, as the offence committed by the 4th respondent is for the first time. In our considered view the orders passed by the authorities as well as the learned single Judge need no interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 18th February, 2008 GRR 1. 2.2 CD copies