HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25288 of 2008 Dated: 08.09.2010 Between: G. Laxman. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Prakasam District & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25288 of 2008 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, a cardholder under Public Distribution System, in shop No.1 of Ommivaram village of N.G. Padu Mandal in Prakasam District, seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not cancelling the authorization of respondent No.4 in respect of the said fair price shop, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he has made representations to respondents 1 to 3 stating that respondent No.4 is not residing in the village and not distributing the essential commodities properly to the cardholders, but inspite of the same, respondents 1 to 3 are not cancelling the authorization of respondent No.4. It is also alleged that the wife of respondent No.4 is working in State Bank of India at Ongole, as such, respondent No.4 is also not residing in Ommivaram village, where the fair price shop is located. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, wherein, it is stated that when representations were made against respondent No.4, the same were inquired into by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Naguluppalapadu. It is stated that during the inquiry, it is revealed that the wife of respondent No.4 is working as Field Officer in State Bank of India, Ongole, and as such, she is residing at her place of work i.e. Ongole and respondent No.4 is travelling between his native place Ommivaram where he is working as a fair price shop dealer and Ongole, where his wife is working. It is also stated that respondent No.4 is distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders properly, with the help of his family members. Counter further states that respondent No.4 was appointed as fair price shop dealer at Ommivaram village 18 years back i.e. in 1991 and he got married about 14 years back, and thus, he has not suppressed any fact. Referring to the report of the Additional Revenue Inspector, Naguluppalapadu, it is stated that during the inquiry, the petitioner has failed to prove that there is improper distribution of essential commodities in the fair price shop, by the 4th respondent, and hence, there is no necessity to initiate any action against him. Respondent No.4 has also filed counter affidavit, enclosing the nativity certificate and voters’ identity card of Ommivaram village. In the counter, it is stated by respondent No.4 that he is distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders properly, and the allegation that he is diverting the commodities to the black market, is not correct. Admitting that his wife is working in State Bank of India, at Ongole, it is stated that there is no bar for such appointment. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that when a representation is made, it is obligatory on the part of the appointing authority to take action and pass appropriate orders. In this case, when representations were filed by the petitioner, the same were inquired into by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Naguluppalapadu, who has submitted a report on 31.07.2008, and as nothing has turned out against respondent No.4 in the preliminary inquiry, there is no need to take any action against him. Merely because a cardholder makes an application for cancellation of authorization of a dealer, it is not obligatory on the part of respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings for cancellation. After conducting preliminary inquiry by deputing a responsible officer, if the appointing authority is of the view that no case is made out to prove the contents of the representation, there is no need to initiate proceedings for cancellation of authorization. In view of the stand taken by respondents in the counter affidavit, as nothing is turned out against respondent No.4 in the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Naguluppalapadu, there is no basis for the relief sought for in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th September 2010. ajr