An administrative order can only be interfered with under Art. 226 if it lacks relevant material or is perverse; failure to follow prescribed procedures alone does not invalidate the decision.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25/06/2015 by which WP (C) No. 23931 of 2014 filed by the appellant challenging the orders cancelling her ARD licence and order dismissing her appeal, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are: Petitioner was a licensee of ARD No. 563 in Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District. Vigilance Officer, Commissionerate of Civil Supplies inspected the shop on 09/08/2012 and sent report regarding certain irregularities. The Controller of Rationing issued a show - cause notice dated 07/09/2012 to the petitioner asking her to show - cause with regard to five charges mentioned in the notice. By order dated 07/11/2012 the authorisation given to the petitioner was temporarily suspended. The Taluk Supply Officer also sent reports to the Director of Civil Supplies. The memo of charges dated 29/05/2013 was issued in which apart from the allegations mentioned in the show - cause notice, several other charges were levelled against the petitioner including misappropriation of food grains. Petitioner submitted a reply to the charges by letter dated 12/06/2013. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, after considering the reply, by order dated 03/10/2013 cancelled the licence and directed for remittance of the amount of misappropriated ration goods in economic rate to the Government. Petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the State. Appeal of the petitioner was considered by the Government and by order dated 24/03/2014 dismissed the appeal. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner.

3. A counter - affidavit on behalf of the second respondent has been filed in the Writ Petition supporting the charges levelled against the petitioner. Allegation of misappropriation of food grains were sought to be justified by the counter - affidavit including the orders passed against the petitioner.

4. Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment this Writ Appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the Writ Appeal raised the following submissions: Vigilance Officer after conducting the inspection on 09/08/2012 has reported that 50 kgs raw rice was found in excess whereas the stock was not weighed by the Vigilance Officer and only by counting of sacks he arrived at his conclusion which was incorrect. There was no excess in the stock and had the Vigilance Officer conducted weighment of the stock, no excess would have been found. It is submitted that paragraph 7.01(2) of the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 clearly required the inspecting officers to assess the stock by cent percent weighment. It is submitted that although on the basis of inspection conducted on 09/08/2012, five charges were levelled, in the suspension order eight charges were levelled. In the charge memo apart from these charges certain additional charges were levelled which was not justified. It is submitted that no mahazar was prepared. It is stated that certain ration cards were seized by the Inspecting Officer. Preparation of mahazar was also required by the Manual while seizing ration goods or articles. Explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been properly considered. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the this Court in Sarojini v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, 1999 KHC 3 : AIR 1999 Ker. 119.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

7. Submission is that