This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 10.02.2010 of respondent No.3 as confirmed in orders dated 30.04.2010 and 28.09.2010 of respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.

The petitioner is working as a temporary fair price shop dealer. On the basis of inspection of his shop by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the following five charges were framed against him, vide show-cause notice dated 02.01.2010:

“Charge-1: That the F.P. Shop dealer is not having any appointment order as F.P. Shop dealer of F.P. Shop No.05 of Chittoor Town and running un-authorizedly and thus contravened clause 22(vii) of the A.P. State PDS Control Order 2008.

Charge 2: That the F.P. Shop dealer is a student and the shop is run by his family members and thus contravened clause 22 (vii) of the A.P. State PDS Control Order 2008.

Charge-3: That the F.P. Shop dealer that there is a variation of 22 Kgs of rice as per stock on ground and per stock register (i.e., as per stock register 6.22 Qtls and as per ground balance 6.00 Qtls) and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.

Charge-4: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not written the particulars of stock available in the stock board at the time of inspection and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.

Charge-5: That the F.P. Shop dealer has not maintained the stock register and sales register properly and thus contravened clause 22(viii) A.P. P.D.S. Control Order 2008.”

The petitioner has filed his detailed explanation dated 08.02.2010 denying these charges. By order dated 10.02.2010, respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioner’s authorization, which was confirmed in the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner, by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively.

3. I have heard Sri J. Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has given detailed explanation to each of the charges. In reply to charge No.1, he has stated that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer, vide respondent No.2’s proceedings No.D.Dis(b)1506/2005 dated 08.06.2005 and that the said charge is totally baseless. In reply to charge No.2, the petitioner explained that he has applied for M.B.A. correspondence course as he had enough time to study apart from looking after the fair price shop and that therefore, he cannot be treated as a student. The petitioner also submitted that his parents are also assisting him in distribution of essential commodities, which is permissible under the relevant regulations under the control order. With regard to charge No.3 pertaining to variation of 22 kgs of rice between stock register and ground stock, he has stated that he has received the total stock of 51.20 quintals at 50 kg per bag from MLS point, Chittoor and that during the dispatch of stock, the weightment was made without excluding the weight of the gunny bags and that therefore, there is every possibility of shortage of 2 kgs of rice in each bag. To charge No.4 pertaining to non-display of stock board, the petitioner explained that the stock details were painted on the wall of the fair price shop premises and in support thereof, he has enclosed a photograph. As regards charge No.5, he has denied the allegation and pleaded that every month, after receipt of stock and distribution of essential commodities to the card holders, the stock and sale registers are promptly written day-wise by mentioning the stock balance on the day and that the same was also observed by the inspecting officer at the time of inspection.

5. In his order, respondent No.3 purporting to extract the explanation of the petitioner to each of the charges in an abridged fashion observed as under:

“....In this context it is submitted that the delinquent dealer is not a permanent dealer and hence the question of restoration of the F.P. shop to the above individual does not arise. Being the tempor