Unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal against the order of learned single Judge dated 24.4.2012 dismissing WP No. 23116 of 2010. The writ petition was filed questioning the orders of District Collector (CS), Guntur and Joint Collector, Guntur (respondents 1 and 2 respectively) confirming the order of 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur by which the authorization of Fair Price Shop dealer-appellant was cancelled.

The appellant was the Fair Price Shop dealer appointed in 2000 at Yarrabalem village of Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur district. On 2.5.2003 Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Mangalagiri visited the fair price shop of appellant and verified the stocks of Food for Work Rice (FFW Rice) with reference to sales and stock registers and ground balance and found shortage of 172.05 quintals. It is stated that as per the stock register, the available stock was 247.80 quintals, but on ground it was only 15.75 quintals and thus there was a shortage of 172.50 quintals of FFW rice. When questioned about the said shortage, the appellant stated that he sold away the rice in black market due to financial crisis and for his family needs. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar conducted a panchanama, recorded statement of the appellant and seized 15.75 quintals of rice which was available and handed over the said stock to the nearby fair price shop dealer for safe custody. Basing on the said report, the fair price shop dealership of appellant was suspended by 3rd respondent by his proceedings in RC No. 1282/2003-G, dated 25.6.2003 which was served on the appellant on 2.7.2003. It appears that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated by the 2nd respondent and by his order dated 17.1.2005 he directed the Tahsildar, Mangalagiri to collect the value of Rs.2,37,773.10 of the stocks diverted under Revenue Recovery Act from the appellant and remit the same to the Civil Supplies Head of Account. It appears that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act have become final. A show cause notice dated 21.10.2009 was issued to the appellant as to why the authorization of fair price shop dealership should not be cancelled and directed him to submit his explanation on or before 31.10.2009. The following two charges were framed against the appellant,

“Charge-I:During inspection of F.P. Shop by the CSDT, Mangalagiri on 02.05.2003, it was found that the FFW rice of Qtls.172.05 Kgs. Short as detailed here under.

Commodity Date of receipt As per Stock Register As per ground balance Variation

FFW Rice 25.05.2002 106.20

FFW Rice 11 -06-2007 141 -60

personal gain by violating A.P. Control Orders 1973.

Charge-II: There is variation between wtock registger and ground balance as shown under Charge-I. Hence, the dealer has not maintained records properly without a notice to misuse the FFW rice. Thus the dealer violated conditions of authorization.”

The appellant submitted his explanation to the show cause notice stating that the FFW rice was given to a contractor at the instance of Engineer in good faith that he will handover the coupons after completion of road works, but the contractor did not handover the coupons to him even after completion of road work. He further stated that he sustained financial loss, suffered starvation and lost the fair price shop dealership and he admitted to pay the value of stocks in instalments, provided his fair price shop is restored. The appellant has not offered to examine the contractor or the engineer or the beneficiaries/card holders who received the FFW rice in support of his explanation. As the said explanation was not convincing, the 3rd respondent held that it is established that the appellant diverted 172.05 quintals of rice pertaining to FFW programme worth Rs.2,37,773.10 and misappropriated the Government money for his personal gain and hence the dealership of the appellant was cancelled by order date