The writ petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of shop No. 47, Nizamabad. He has been selected duly following a proper procedure. There are no complaints lodged against him of any irregularities committed in the matter of distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, but however, when the Civil Supplies Department Officials have visited the shop, it is alleged that, someone other than the authorized dealer is operating the fair price shop. The fair price shop dealer himself is required to run the fair price shop and is not supposed to run it through an agent or any other 3rd party. Since the original dealer was not found during the course of inspection, the authorization issued to the dealer has been cancelled. The said order has been challenged before the revisional authority.

2. The case and the claim of the writ petitioner is that he is personally operating the fair price shop, but on rare occasions, where, for attending to some compelling necessities if he has gone out of the station, he makes arrangements by ensuring that one or the other of his family members operate the fair price shop, so that no inconvenience is caused to the cardholders all due to his absence. It is pointed out by the petitioner that without any prior notice, a compulsion might arise suddenly for a fair price shop dealer to move out of the village or the area. Sometimes, there will be emergencies with regard to medical necessities of the dealer or any of his immediate family members, compelling him to leave the headquarters. In such circumstances, if an alternative arrangement is made, it does not amount to operating the fair price shop by appointing an agent or through an unconnected 3rd party.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has pointed out that at the time of inspection of the fair price shop, the fair price shop dealer was not found at the shop, but some other unconnected third person was found in the shop. Therefore, there is reason to infer that the fair price shop dealer himself is not running the shop and thus, violated the conditions of the grant and for the violation of the conditions of grant, the authorization can be lawfully cancelled.

4. Availability of power for cancellation of an authorization is one aspect of the matter, while exercise of such power is an entirely different matter. Exercise of power calls for a preexisting reasonable basis and a fair approach to the subject. The decision-making authority must have a realistic approach to the facts and circumstances prevailing in each case. A medical emergency or an emergency of an equally important nature might crop up suddenly warranting absence of the fair price shop dealer at the shop. If such a dealer were to keep one of his family members or a person of trust in-charge of the fair price shop so that no inconvenience is caused to the cardholders, such a conduct does not completely fall foul of the conditions subject to which the dealership has been granted. While the terms and conditions of the grant undoubtedly require the dealer himself to operate the fair price shop and do not allow or authorize a 3rd party or an agent of the dealer to run the shop, in case of emergencies and exceptions, an alternative arrangement made by the dealer cannot be considered as an act of carrying on the operation of the dealership through a 3rd party. In those set of circumstances and in the absence of any other irregularity, I feel that the ends of justice would be better served if the respondents undertake a minimum of three visits to the premises where the writ petitioner is carrying on the fair price shop within the next six months or there about. If the writ petitioner himself is found carrying on the shop, it would be safe then to infer that the writ petitioner has not authorized any other 3rd party to carry on to operate the fair price shop. On the contrary, if during any of the three visits, any person other than the dealer is found op