Point of Law : Cancellation of petitioner’s authorization on the ground that charge No.5 was proved, which is grave in nature, could not find merit consideration as per Clause 24 of the Control Order, 2008 as the maximum variation 1.5% is allowed for single commodity for one month sales transactions.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the appeal in Rc.No.K6/12/2016 dated 08.08.2017 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.No.DICS/1786/2015 dated 30.07.2016, pertaining to F.P.Shop No.24 of Eddulapalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of Eddulapalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, by the 3rd respondent by way of notification. Since the date of appointment, she used to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization by proceedings dated 19.08.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1367 of 2015 questioning the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization and this Court by order dated 05.02.2015 suspended the same. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.1367 of 2015, the petitioner was supplied the essential commodities to distribute the same to the card holders, pending writ petition. Again, the 3rd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization on 30.07.2016 and also issued show-cause notice as to why the petitioner’s authorization should not be cancelled. On considering the explanation of the petitioner, the authorization was cancelled on 30.07.2016, as per the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 06.01.2016 passed in appeal preferred against the suspension order dated 20.11.2015. Against which, the appeal in Rc.No.K6/12/2016 was preferred to the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent failed to pass any orders on stay petition and in appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8799 of 2017 and the same was disposed of on 15.03.2017 directing the appellate authority - Joint Collector, Anantapur to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 08.08.2017. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition.

3. Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that neither the 2nd respondent - appellate authority nor the 3rd respondent - disciplinary authority has considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 27.06.2015 to the show-cause notice dated 17.06.2015 and passed the impugned cancellation order. The impugned cancellation order was passed based on the report dated 17.06.2015 submitted by the 4th respondent - Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal stating that on a complaint received from the card holders, he enquired into the matter in detail and submitted a report. Based on the said report, show-cause notice dated 17.06.2015 was issued. Neither the 4th respondent nor his subordinates had inspected the petitioner’s shop and verified the record and no panachanama was conducted. But, the respondent-authorities are bent upon to cancel the petitioner’s authorization by hook or crook to accommodate the chosen men of the local politicians. The 2nd respondent - appellate authority also has not considered the grounds of appeal in its proper perspective objectively and mechanically confirmed the cancellation order, which is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2008’). He further contended that the disciplinary authority had not conducted any enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Clause 5 of the Control Order, 2008 as held by this Court in B.Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015(3) ALD 617.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the contents of t