IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETIITON No.8086 of 2007 Between: B.Gabriel … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 8086 OF 2007 ORDER:- The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer of Mydavolu village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District, whose athorisation has been cancelled by order of respondent No.2-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, dated 20.03.2002, which was confirmed in appeal by respondent No.3-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, vide order, dated 07.09.2002, and further confirmed in revision by respondent No.4-District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur vide order dated 24.02.2007, has filed this writ petition assailing the said orders as illegal. The brief facts are that on a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Edlapadu that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities in the distribution of the essential commodities, a show cause notice, dated 18.02.2002, was issued to the petitioner in respect of the charges, which are as follows: “Charge No.1: - You, being the responsible Fair Price Shop Dealer, when you have been allotted rice to the tune of 25-00 qtls and 2-50 quintals under Antyodaya and Annayojana Schemes and 20-00 quintals under Annapurna Scheme and 780 litres of kerosene and 1-00 qtl. of sugar for the month of October, 2001; as you have not distributed to the cardholders properly and lifted some stock to the black market, show cause as to why your authorization should not be cancelled; Charge No.2: - You, being the responsible fair price shop dealer, as you have sold the essential commodities to higher rates to that of the rates fixed by the Government, ex: - as you have sold rice at the rate of Rs.5-50 per kilo, sugar at Rs.13-50 and kerosene at Rs.8-25 per litre, show cause as to why your authorization should not be cancelled; Charge No.3: - You, being the responsible fair price shop dealer, as the Head Master of R.C.M.School In Maidavolu Village has complained in the statement before the Enquiry Officer that you have not distributed the rice to the tune of 8-42 qtls. meant for the pupils of the above said school under Mid-day-Meal scheme for the months of August, 2001 and September, 2001, why your authorization should not be cancelled; The petitioner submitted his explanation to each of the said charges. Respondent No.2, being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, found him guilty of all the charges and cancelled the authorization by orders, dated 20.03.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, did not go into charge Nos.1 and 2. But considering charge No.3, respondent No.3 disbelieving the submission of the petitioner held that the petitioner failed to distribute the rice allotted for the months of August and September, 2001 (released on 04.10.2001). On a revision filed against the said order, respondent No.4 having noticed the contradictory submissions of the petitioner regarding the distribution of the rice allotted for the aforesaid months, disbelieved the said explanation and dismissed the revision confirming the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Questioning the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any irregularity much less in the distribution of the rice allotted for the months of August and September 2001. She would further contend that respondent Nos.2 and 3, having not found the petitioner guilty of charge Nos.1 and 2, ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of charge No.3 also. Learned counsel would also submit that if the explanation offered by the petitioner is properly appreciated, the same would reveal that the petitioner is not guilty of charge No.3 also. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would submit that even though charge Nos.1 and 2 were not considered by respondent Nos.2 and 3, charge No.3 was held to be proved and the same is sufficient for canceling the authorization. It is true that although three charges were famed against the petitioner, in respect of which respondent No.2 found him guilty, the appellate and the revisional authorities did not go into the said charges, rather confined consideration only in respect of chare No.3. Evidently and inferentially the said authorities accepted the case of the petitioner and dropped the said charges. The only aspect to be considered, therefore, is as to whether the respondent authorities rightly found the petitioner guilty of charge No.3. As per charge No.3, as extracted above, the petitioner did not distribute rice (8.42 quintals) meant for the students under the mid-day meals scheme for the months of August and September, 2001. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that the stock was released to him on 17.10.2001, but due to holidays to the school from 16.10.2001, he handed over the keys of the fair price shop to the headmaster in the presence of Sarpanch with a request to distribute the rice to the students and left the headquarters on his personal work from 01.11.2001 to 10.11.2001. In this regard, the Mandal Revenue Officer inspected the shop on 09.11.2001 and found ten quintals of rice meant for food for work programme and the rice meant for the mid day meals scheme was not available. At the first instance, the petitioner during the course of enquiry on 19.01.2002, sought to explain by stating that on his return to the headquarters, he approached the headmaster of the school for permission to distribute the rice, but the headmaster directed to get permission from the Mandal Revenue Officer. The petitioner later changed his version in the appeal and revision proceedings, stating that the stock was handed over to the headmaster in the presence of Sarpanch of the village on 30.10.2001 and that the headmaster distributed the stock. Thus, while at the first instance, the petitioner sought to take escape route stating that the headmaster refused to grant permission but at a later stage, he adopted a stand that the headmaster himself distributed the rice. Moreover, in the enquiry with the school children it was confirmed that he did not distribute rice to them. The contradictory stand taken by the petitioner apparently shows that he failed to distribute the commodities as per the allotment. He could not have either left the stock remotely also to the custody of the headmaster nor asked him to distribute. The primary responsibility of the distribution of the commodities solely rests upon the petitioner himself being the dealer. In the circumstances, respondent Nos.2 and 3 rightly disbelieved the explanation of the petitioner in respect of charge No.3 and hence, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. Without there being any other discernible illegality, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J December 9, 2010 lmv