C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing No. RCS/1974/10, dated 09.11.2010, of respondent No. 3, proceedings bearing No. Rc. CS2/3898/2010, dated 16.04.2011, of respondent No. 2, and proceedings bearing No. Rc. CS2/1309/2011, dated 18.02.2012, of respondent No. 1.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, and also perused the record.

3. The petitioner was the permanent fair price shop dealer of East Veerayapalem Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District. On 08.10.2010, respondent No. 4 has inspected the petitioners fair price shop and submitted his report to respondent No. 3. Based on the said report, respondent No. 3 has issued show-cause notice vide proceedings bearing No. RCF/1974/2010, dated 18.10.2010, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his authorisation shall not be cancelled. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, dated 26.10.2010. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 has passed order, dated 09.11.2010, cancelling the petitioners fair price shop authorisation. The said order was confirmed in the appeal and revision by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition assailing these orders.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 3 has committed a serious illegality in cancelling the petitioners authorisation without there being any evidence whatsoever proving the irregularities alleged against him. She has further submitted that the procedure followed by respondent No. 3 is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice as he has relied upon the purported statements of certain cardholders made against the petitioner without supplying such statements and giving him the opportunity of confronting them with the statements. She has also submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 1 have mechanically confirmed the order of respondent No. 3 without independent application of mind.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies sought to justify the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

6. I have carefully perused the cancellation order passed by respondent No. 3, who has framed three Charges against the petitioner, the gist of which is as follows.

7. Charge No. I That as per the report, dated 08.10.2010, of respondent No. 4, the petitioner has not been distributing the essential commodities within time and thereby, he is subjecting the cardholders to serious inconvenience.

8. Charge No. II That the report, dated 08.10.2010, of respondent No. 4, revealed that the petitioner was transporting 20 bags of rice weighing 50 kgs each in TATA HD four wheeler bearing registration No. AP27 X 4033, that the Station House Officer, Darsi has intercepted the vehicle and handed over the same to respondent No. 4 and that the driver of the vehicle has informed that the seized stock belongs to the petitioner and thereby, it was confirmed that the petitioner was diverting the PDS rice to black market.

9. Charge No. III That as per the report, dated 08.10.2010, of respondent No. 4, some of the cardholders, who were examined in the presence of the petitioner by the Inspecting Officials, have complained that the petitioner has not been distributing the sugar for the last six months, that he has not distributed 6.93 quintals of PDS rice, 35 kgs of AAY rice, 18 liters of palm oil, 6 kgs of red gram dal and 21 kgs of sugar, that 10.00 quintals of PDS rice seized by the police belongs to the petitioner which was also not distributed to the cardholders and that those stocks were diverted to the black market.

10. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice. As a copy of the reply is not available on file, this Court has summoned the record. I have perused the record, including the show-cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner.

11. In reply to Charge No. I, the petitioner