This writ petition is instituted by a fair-price shop dealer of Nagasamudram Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District, challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram on 18.01.2012 canceling the authorization of the writ petitioner for running and managing the fair-price shop.

2. On 03.09.2011, the Vigilance and Enforcement Authorities, Anantapur conducted a surprise check on the fair-price shop run and managed by the petitioner. Finding a variation in the stock of rice and sugar to the extent of 1.03 quintals and 1.06 quintals respectively, the Tahsildar, C.K. Palli, based on the adverse report, passed orders on 04.09.2011 suspending the authorization of the writ petitioner. When the petitioner appealed against the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected it by his proceedings dated 10.10.2011 and thus confirmed the order of suspension passed by the Tahsildar. Two charges have been framed against the petitioner through the show-cause notice dated 29.12.2011 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, calling for his explanation. The petitioner was directed to attend the hearing on 07.01.2012 in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Accordingly the petitioner attended the hearing and filed his detailed explanation to the two charges.

3. The first charge relates to the deficiency of stock of the essential commodities lifted by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has lifted rice of a total quantity of 64.98 quintals for the months of September and October, 2011. As per the sales register, he has distributed 10.95 quintals only and hence, balance of 54.03 quintals of rice should be there available in the depot. However, there was only 53.00 quintals of rice that is available in the depot. Thus a deficiency of 1.03 quintals of rice was found. Similarly, he was supplied 2 quintals of sugar, of which, he has distributed 19 kgs. Therefore, a balance of 1.81 quintals should have been physically available in the shop. However, what was remaining in the shop was only 75 kgs. Thus, the difference in quantity of sugar was 1.06 quintals. This variation of the stock position of rice and sugar was too steep. The petitioner has challenged the correctness behind this allegation by pointing out that the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers have inspected the fair-price shop when he was not available in the village and that they have not physically weighed the available stock and therefore he disputed the correctness of the statement of allegation. The second allegation relates to non-maintenance of the records properly and consequently he was alleged to have violated condition number 4(1) and 4(11) of the license. The dealer has also disputed this averment that he has not maintained the records properly.

4. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram has recorded his findings holding the petitioner guilty of both the allegations based upon the report submitted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials. Though this order is an appealable order, the writ petitioner has challenged the correctness of these proceedings in this writ petition essentially for two reasons. One, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not conducted any enquiry and no witnesses have been examined in his presence and merely based upon the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials, the disciplinary action has been finalized by the Revenue Divisional Officer and hence, principles of natural justice are violated in the instant case. Secondly, no reasons are assigned as to why the petitioner can be said to be guilty of the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several Judgments of this Court including the one rendered by a Division Bench in Ambati Srinivasulu v. District Collector, Nellore 2006 (1) ALD 273.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that when once certain quantities of essential commodities are made available for a fair-pr