V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Nernur Village Gudur Mandal, Nellore district. On allegations that she has contravened the licence issued under A. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (hereinafter called, the Order), the petitioner s licence was cancelled by the appointing authority, second respondent herein. Second respondent also imposed a fine of Rs. 44,805. 00 purporting to be in terms of Clause-14-A of the Order. The petitioner s appeal to the Joint Collector under Clause-17 of the Order and subsequent revision under clause-18 of the Order to the District collector were also dismissed. Hence, the writ petition. . ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sri K. Raji Reddy raised only one contention. He submits that imposing fine of rs. 44,805/- is illegal. According to the learned counsel under Clause-14-A of the order which was Introduced by amendment vide G. O. Ms. No. 232, dt. 12-3-1996 when the stock is diverted only the Revenue divisional Officer can impose penalty three times the difference between the market rate and public distribution system rate of the commodities diverted. As there was no charge, and no finding to that effect is recorded, imposing fine is illegal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Civil supplies, however, relies on a finding recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer in relation to clause No. 2 in support of the contention that sub-clause (c) of Clause 14-A of the Order is attracted to the facts of the case. ( 4 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is as to whether the order of the second respondent as confirmed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 imposing penalty of rs. 44,805/- besides cancelling the dealership is in accordance with Clause 14-A of the order. ( 5 ) IT is necessary to extract Clause 14-A of the Order which reads as under. 3 and 4 imposing penalty of rs. 44,805/- besides cancelling the dealership is in accordance with Clause 14-A of the order. ( 5 ) IT is necessary to extract Clause 14-A of the Order which reads as under. 14-A Penalties for possessing cards, making false entries or diverting stocks: notwithstanding anything contained in this order, (A) If any fair price shop dealer is found to be in possession of supply card (s) or draws commodities by making false entries of card number (s) even though no such cardholder resides in the village/municipality as the case may be, such fair price shop dealer shall be required to pay loss to Government calculated as the difference between the market rate and Public Distribution System rate of all commodities supposed to have been supplied or drawn on such card (s) or entries, from the date of issue of authorization to the fair price shop dealer concerned or from the date of issue of such household supply card whichever is later; (B) If any fair price shop dealer makes false entry or entries in respect of card (s) held by person (s) regarding in the village/municipality concerned, by fraudulently showing to have supplied more quantities than the quantity actually supplied or diverts stocks to any person, but does not make any entry in the cards, with a view to making fictitious entries subsequently, or cover up the excess stocks already available with him, such dealer shall be required to pay loss to Government calculated as the difference between the market rate and Public distribution System rate of the commodity actually delivered or covered by such false entry or entries worked backwards from the date of issue of authorization to the fair price shop dealer concerned or from the date of issue of such household supply card, whichever is later; (C) If any fair place shop dealer diverts stocks either wholly or partly, he/shall be liable to pay as penalty three times the difference between the market rate and Public distribution System rate of the commodity thus diverted. ( 6 ) A plain reading of the above Clause would show that if a fair price shop dealer is found in possession of supply cards or possesses commodities by making false entries he shall be required to pay loss to the government calculated as the difference between market rate and public distribution rate and all the commodities supposed to have been supplied or drawn on such cards or entries. As per sub-clause (b) of clause 14-A of the Order if a Fair Price Shop dealer makes false entry in respect of cards held by persons residing in the village fraudulently showing to have supplied more quantities than quantity actually supplied or diverts the stocks to any person such dealer shall pay loss to the Government calculated as difference between market rate and public distribution rate. In case where fair Price Shop Dealer diverts stocks either wholly or partly the penalty shall be three times difference between market rate and public distribution rate. ( 7 ) IT is well-settled that when law requires a party to do a particular thing in a particular manner, it shall have to be done in the same manner or not at all done. In Taylor and Taylor it was held: when a statutory power is conferred for the first time upon a Court and the mode of exercising it is pointed out, it means that no other mode is to be adopted. . . . . . . . . . on a great varieties of acts where application has been directed to be by petition, and it has been laid down that being the mode appointed by the Act which conferred the jurisdiction, it must exercise the jurisdiction according to the provisions of the Act. . . . . . . . . . on a great varieties of acts where application has been directed to be by petition, and it has been laid down that being the mode appointed by the Act which conferred the jurisdiction, it must exercise the jurisdiction according to the provisions of the Act. In the same way, when the statute says who is the person to petition, it means that the person or persons so described, and no others, shall be entitled to petition, otherwise any one interested might petition under the general principle that when powers are to be exercised by a Court of law any person interested in calling those powers into execution is entitled to come before the Court, and the only reason for putting in such a section is to shew that that is not the meaning of the legislature, but that the right of calling for the exercise of the powers shall be confined to the persons so described. ( 8 ) THE above principle was approved by supreme Court of India in G. E. Board v. Girdharalal, State of Gujarat v. Shantilal, ramchandra v. Govind and Shiv Kumar chadha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions. Suffice it to state in Ramachandra v. Govind it was laid down as under: a century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426 Jessel M. R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time. It was applied by the Privy Council, in nazir Ahmed v. Emperor, 63 Ind App 372 = (AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)), and later by this Court in several cases, Shiv Bahadur singh v. State of U. P. (1954) SCR 1098 = (AIR 1954 SC 332 - 1954 Crl LJ 910): deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1962) scr 662 = ( AIR 1961 SC 1527 = 1961 (2) crl. LJ 705) to a Magistrate making a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. LJ 705) to a Magistrate making a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This rule squarely applies "where indeed, the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other". (Maxwell s Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn. , pp. 362-363 ). ( 9 ) WHEN Clause 14-A of the Order stipulates three different situations and requires dealer to pay penalty at a particular rate, the authority has to address himself as to whether the contravention alleged falls within the ambit of sub-clause (a) or (b) or (c ). Without first determining in relation to a charge the penalty under clause 14-A (a) and (c) of the Order cannot be imposed. ( 10 ) AFTER receiving report of the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer suspended the dealership and framed four charges which are to the following effect. Charge. I: The Fair Price Shop dealer has failed to note the card numbers in the sales register of rice for the month of 2/95 and 4/95. Thus she violated the instructions of the higher authorities. Charge. II: As verified from the sales registers of rice, sugar and kerosene oil it was noticed that Fair Price Shop dealer has made double and triple entries on a single card from 1/95 to 12/95 and misused a huge quantity of the stocks pertaining to P. D. S. Thus, she violated C1. 4 of APSC (RECS) order, 1973. Charge. III: That the Fair Price Shop dealer has misused the ration meant for P. D. S. by having 5 bogus cards with her. Thus, she violated C1. 5 of APSC (RDCS) Order, 1973. Charge. IV: That the dealer is selling the commodities at higher prices than fixed by the Government. Thus, she violated C1. 4 of the APSC (RDCS) order, 1973. ( 11 ) EX facie none of the charges relate to the allegations of diversion of stock supplied to the petitioner. Be that as it may, even charge No. II on which reliance is placed by the learned Government Pleader for Civil supplies does not specifically deal with diversion of stock. By Charge II, it is alleged that from January, 1995 to December, 1995 the petitioner has made double and triple entries on a single card. Be that as it may, even charge No. II on which reliance is placed by the learned Government Pleader for Civil supplies does not specifically deal with diversion of stock. By Charge II, it is alleged that from January, 1995 to December, 1995 the petitioner has made double and triple entries on a single card. The petitioner explained that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) has not verified the register, but arrived at the conclusion which is the basis for the allegation. After considering the explanation, the second respondent recorded that the charge is proved. However, there is not even a whisper that the petitioner has diverted stocks either wholly or partly. Applying the principle that unless the allegation/contravention falls within sub-clause (c) of Clause 14-A of the order imposing three times penalty would not only be illegal, but arbitrary. ( 12 ) INDEED, while summing up the enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer concludes that all the charges are proved and that the petitioner has gained an amount of Rs. 14,935. 00 by selling them in open market. The conclusion that he sold stocks in open market is without any basis. However, the charges together would indicate that the petitioner is guilty of manipulating the records either by not making proper entries or by showing double entries in relation to stocks supplied to the cardholders. Therefore, imposing fine of rs. 14,935/- which is admittedly the difference between market rate and public distribution rate would meet ends of justice. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is disposed of. The orders passed by respondents 2 to 4 are modified to the effect that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 14,935. 00 as penalty, if not already paid. The order of cancellation of dealership is sustained. There shall be no order as to costs.