1. This writ petition is filed invoking Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 07.2.2010 passed by the third respondent, namely, District Collector, in exercise of revisional powers under Clause 21 of Andhra Prdesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 (Control Order, for brevity). It is mainly contended that the impugned order is vitiated by non-disclosure of reasons for dismissing the revision petition submitted by petitioner against the order of second respondent, namely, Joint Collector, who confirmed the order of first respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle (RDO). Be it noted that RDO by an order dated 21.11.2007 cancelled Fair Price Shop (FPS) authorization of petitioner, which was confirmed by the appellate authority against which revision was filed before the third respondent.

2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as FPS dealer of Kuppanapally Village by proceedings dated 05.3.2005. As many as 246 ration cards are attached to petitioner’s FPS. First respondent initiated disciplinary action under Clause 5(5) of the Control Order and issued show cause notice dated 13.5.2007 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to six charges. These related to non-supply of 635 liters of kerosene to the card holders for the month of February 2007, diversion of kerosene stock to black-market, non-display of the quantity and price board in the shop, running FPS at non-notified place, delay in lifting the stocks of essential commodities and distributing kerosene at higher rates. Petitioner submitted explanation on 12.5.2007. Considering the explanation first respondent came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and, therefore, by proceedings dated 18.7.2007 cancelled the authorization under Clause 5(5) of Control Order.

3. Aggrieved by the cancellation of authorization, petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent under Clause 20 of Control Order. The same was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2007 agreeing with the findings of the RDO. As noticed supra, the petitioner was unsuccessful before third respondent in his revision petition. The Revisional authority while dismissing the revision, made the following observations.

The case has been taken on filed and notice was issued to the Revision Petitioner. The case was initially called on 21.1.2008 and finally came up for hearing on 21.11.2009. The Advocate for the Revision Petitioner present and filed written submissions denying all the charges framed against him and also stated that the Revision Petitioner is a physically handicapped person and requested to allow the Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the lower court and restore the F.P.Shop dealership to the Revision Petitioner.

Heard the plea of the Revision Petitioner and perused connected records placed before me.

The Revision Petitioner has not advanced any new grounds that would merit consideration. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.

The stay orders passed vide this office proceedings Roc.C1/1634/07 dated 1.1.2008 is hereby vacated.

4. The counsel for petitioner made two submissions. The impugned order is bad and unsustainable as it is bereft of reasons and, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the original authority, who also failed to give reasons. Per contra, the Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contends that the RDO as well as appellate authority and revisional authority gave adequate reasons and, therefore, no interference is called for. She also submits that when the appellate/revisional authority confirmed the order of original authority, requirement of giving elaborate reasons is not mandatory.

5. As the question raised is one of law, with the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard at the stage of admission and is being disposed of by this order.

6. First re