Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who has suffered cancellation of authorization to run a Fair Price Shop, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 29.9.2006 in Rc.B1/RP/02/2006, passed by the 3rd respondent-District Collector, Krishna District, confirming the order dated 21.10.2005 in Rc.B1/SRA/35/2004, passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, and the order dated 27.10.2004 in Rc.A7/2099/03, passed by the 1st respondent-Sub-Collector, Vijayawada.

3. The petitioner was an authorized Fair Price Shop dealer of Prasadampadu village, Vijayawada (Rural) Mandal, Krishna District. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Vijayawada (Rural), submitted a report to the 1st respondent complaining that the petitioner has diverted 94.80 quintals of rice meant for free distribution under Food for Work (FFW) programme. Based on the said report, a show cause notice dated 20.10.2004 was issued calling for the explanation of the petitioner as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The following is the charge enumerated in the said show cause notice:

“The dealer has diverted 94.80 qtls of Food For Work Rice contravening clause 17 (C) and conditions 11 & 13 of authorization under A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001.”

4. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner offered explanation on 01.11.2004, inter alia explaining the reasons for such shortage in the stock, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

(a) According to Government Memo No.26776/91, dated 07.05.1991, the F.P. Shop dealers are allowed marginal allowance of 1.5% on the quantity of all commodities supplied to them for distribution. At this rate I am eligible for a shortage of Q 17.08 on the quantity of Q. 1139.32 supplied to me.

(b) As submitted above a major portion of the quantity of Q.1139.32 was dumped into my F.P. shop by arranging nets. On account of heavy weight the ground under the bags sunk to a depth of 12 ft. resulting in several bags being broken and the rice mixed with the earth. Further since the rice was kept in the shop for 1 ½ years, it was reduced to powder due to dehydration. The quantity damaged for these reasons is 12 Q. due to pressure from the house owner, the rice was removed and the damaged quantity was proposed to repair. But since it was unfit human consumption, it was thrown into the nearby irrigation canal with the consent of the house owner and the Panchayat Members. A statement given by the house owner and the Panchayat Member confirming this fact is enclosed for kind perusal.

(c) The remaining quantity of Q. 65.72 (94.80 minus 17.08 plus 12.00) was distributed to the beneficiaries on the coupons received from the Panchayat Raj Department officers. I enclose a detailed statement showing the coupon numbers and the quantity distributed to the beneficiaries for the quantity of Q. 65.72 for your kind perusal.

5. While so explaining, the petitioner further explained the legal position stating that the contravention alleged was only in respect of the rice meant for Food for Work (FFW), but not the Public Distribution System (PDS) rice, therefore, the seizure was not tenable under law and hence sought for exoneration from the said charge. However, without considering the said explanation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent, who is the original authority, has passed order dated 27.10.2004 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner. The same has been confirmed by the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent, who are the appellate authority and the revisional authority, respectively, through orders dated 21.10.2005 and 29.9.2006. Hence the present writ petition.

6. Admittedly, 1st respondent is the competent and original authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings regarding the alleged irregularities committed by the authorized Fair