JUDGMENT :

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order issued by the third respondent in S. No. 137/2019/S5 dated 24.12.2019 in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No. 0118021, D. No. 265 Ponnampeta village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting enquiry and without considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 05.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 0118021 in D. No. 2/65, Ponnampeta Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, by the third respondent in the year 2016. The authorization of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and extended till 31.03.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application for renewal of his authorization. Accordingly, his authorization was extended for two more years and he is continuing as fair price shop dealer for the above said shop and distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders in the village without any remarks and complaints.

3. While so, the respondent-authorities inspected the petitioner’s shop on 19.10.2019 and found some variations in the essential commodities. The third respondent issued show cause notice dated 29.10.2019 framing three charges alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities and seized the stocks. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 05.11.2019. However, the third respondent issued impugned proceedings in S. No. 137/2019/S5 dated 24.12.2019 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner without conducting enquiry and without considering explanation dated 05.11.2019. Hence, the writ petition.

4. The third respondent-Joint Collector filed counter affidavit stating that the fifth respondent-Tahsildar inspected the subject shop and found certain variations in the stock. He submitted report to the third respondent to take action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and opportunity of personal hearing was afforded. As the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory, impugned proceedings were issued cancelling the authorization and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it appears that the fair price shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Civil Supplies Department officials alleging variations in the stock, they seized the stock available in the shop pursuant to the mediators report. Basing on the report submitted by the inspecting officials, the third respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner by framing three charges and called for explanation.

6. Charge No. 1 is that, no authorized fair price shop dealer shall allow the person other than the family members for distribution of scheduled commodities in his/her shop. If any person found distributing the scheduled commodities as Benami, the authorization of such shop shall liable for cancellation besides initiating action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Seizure of available commodities in the shop) and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the provision of Criminal Procedure Code, thus the respondent contravened the provisions of AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. In the explanation, the dealer denied the charge and submitted that, at the time of inspection of fair price shop, his wife Ramanamma is in the fair price shop and assisting him in day to day operations of fair price shop. As such, she is not a benami and in fact she is the nominee. He submitted that, as per the allotment made by the Civil Supplies Authorities, every month he was drawing the Demand Drafts from the bank and releasing the Essential Commodities prompt