Judgment : 1. This writ petition is instituted by a fair-price shop dealer of Pedda Marriveedu Village of Gonegandla Mandal of Kurnool District, challenging the validity of the orders passed by the District Collector on 17.09.2010, confirming the orders passed by the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Kurnool on 30.06.2010, as well as the orders passed on 22.01.2010 by the third respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, acting on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Gonegandla Mandal, that the writ petitioner/fair-price shop dealer has committed a grave irregularity by diverting 5 quintals of public distribution system rice into black market, issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner on 31.12.2009, called for his explanation as to why the authorization be not cancelled. The writ petitioner filed his explanation on 11.01.2010. The case of the writ petitioner is that, due to huge downpour of rain that occasioned in the village between 01.10.2009 to 03.10.2009, the PDS stock of rice which was meant for distribution to various schools towards the mid-day meals scheme to be implemented there, has been preserved in a neighbours house. But however, he has pointed out that, 3.5 quintals of PDS rice was handed over to the Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School at Peddamarriveedu village on 16.10.2009 and 1.5 quintals on 19.10.2009. Thus, the entire stock of 5 quintals has been delivered to the school where it was meant to be utilized for mid-day meals scheme. He therefore contested the allegation thrown against him that he has diverted the stock of rice into black market as factually not correct. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, has not appreciated this explanation, notwithstanding the fact that, Kurnool District has witnessed unprecedented rainfall during the said period and many villages were flooded by the Tungabhadra waters cutting them off from the main line. 3. It was an unprecedented situation prevailing in Kurnool District during the said period. But yet, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders on 22.01.2010 holding the petitioner guilty of diverting the PDS rice into black market and thus, held him to have contravened Clause 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Accordingly, he cancelled the authorization of the fair-price shop of the writ petitioner. In terms of Clause 20, an appeal would lie there against to the Joint Collector. Accordingly, he cancelled the authorization of the fair-price shop of the writ petitioner. In terms of Clause 20, an appeal would lie there against to the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector has decided the said appeal through his order dated 30.06.2010 and relied upon the report dated 22.12.2009 said to have been submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Yemmiganur, leveling a number of allegations including the allegation that the writ petitioner has allowed the shop to be run and managed by an unauthorized third party. What missed the attention of the Joint Collector is the fact that, the show cause notice dated 31.12.2009 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, did not advert to any of these allegations too. The show cause notice confined its scrutiny to the solitary allegation of diversion of 5 quintals of PDS rice meant to be delivered to schools for the mid day meals scheme whereas, the report of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Yemmiganur, dated 22.12.2009 appears to have listed various other allegations too. Since the said report of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Yemmiganur was not firstly made available to the writ petitioner and secondly the contents thereof did not form part of the show-cause notice dated 31.12.2009, the action of the Joint Collector, Kurnool, in relying upon the said report and its contents amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. 4. However, the District Collector who is the competent authority to entertain the revisions and decide, has also in his order dated 17.09.2010 relied upon the same report of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Yemmiganur. With regard to the solitary allegation leveled against the petitioner, the explanation offered by the writ petitioner has not been accepted on the plea that, when the shop was inspected on 07.10.2009, the petitioner has not informed as to the place where he has stored the PDS rice of 5 quintals meant for the mid day meals scheme. 5. Principles of natural justice bring not only transparency and fairness to the entire exercise but would also add luster to the proceedings. The allegations which have been thrown against an individual should be made known to him very precisely so that, he will be able to meet the case so set up against him. 5. Principles of natural justice bring not only transparency and fairness to the entire exercise but would also add luster to the proceedings. The allegations which have been thrown against an individual should be made known to him very precisely so that, he will be able to meet the case so set up against him. If the explanation offered by the writ petitioner is totally unconnected to the facts pleaded by him, perhaps there can be room for suspicion about its genuineness. Very strangely, no attempt has been made either by the Revenue Divisional Officer or Joint Collector or District Collector in the instant case as to whether Pedda Marriveedu Village is one of those villages which has been badly battered by the extraordinary amounts of rainfall or not. If it were to be true that, there was an excessive rainfall at that point of time and with a view to protect the food-grains from getting spoiled, if the petitioner were to warehouse them in any other premises including that of his neighbours, the bonafidesbehind any such move and attempt deserve to be appreciated. A fair-price shop dealer perhaps, may not have adequate warehousing facilities to preserve the stock from getting spoiled all because of excessive rainfall. The facilities for preservation and safe keeping of essential commodities could be available on a conservative scale. It would be hard to anticipate a fair-price shop dealer to expect or look for extraordinary situations and then keep necessary infrastructural facilities ready to meet any such contingency. Therefore, as a prudent man would have attempted, if the fair-price shop dealer has sought to preserve the food-grains in a neighbour’s house, where such preservation could be little more effective, no sinister motive need be attributed to the conduct of such a fair-price shop dealer. Hence, the explanation offered by the writ petitioner should have been tested in the backdrop of the extraordinary situation prevailing in Kurnool District, at that relevant point of time. 6. Therefore, I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents, Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Joint Collector, Kurnool as well as the District Collector, Kurnool District, have failed to be alive to the extraordinary situation prevailing at the relevant point of time, while finalizing action against the writ petitioner. 6. Therefore, I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the respondents, Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Joint Collector, Kurnool as well as the District Collector, Kurnool District, have failed to be alive to the extraordinary situation prevailing at the relevant point of time, while finalizing action against the writ petitioner. The impugned orders therefore passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 22.01.2010 and the Collector, Kurnool District on 17.09.2010 deserve to be set at naught and they are accordingly set-aside. The authorization of the fair-price shop for which the writ petitioner is the dealer should be restored forthwith and he shall be permitted to lift and supply the essential commodities to the various cardholders from the month of March, 2012 onwards. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. No costs.