JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, an Authorised Wholesale Distributor appointed under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, is challenging Exts.P5, P7 and P9 Orders. 2. The petitioner states that he was an Authorised Wholesale Distributor (AWD) running AWD-12 in Udumbanchola Taluk. Ext.P1 notice dated 30.10.2014 was served on him alleging that the Taluk Supply Officer (TSO) along with the Rationing Officer inspected his wholesale godown on 30.10.2010 and found variations in stock. The petitioner would state that Ext.P2 Inspection Book maintained in the godown did not disclose any irregularity detected in the alleged inspection conducted on 30.10.2010. The notice was served on the petitioner after four years of inspection. An amount of Rs.6,59,532/-was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. No calculation statement was given to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner denied the allegations contained in Ext.P1 notice and gave Ext.P3 reply dated 23.12.2014. Ext.P4 additional explanation was also submitted on 21.07.2016. After an enquiry, the 3rd respondent-District Collector issued an order rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and the ordering to recover a sum of Rs.6,59,532/-towards economic cost of ration articles found in stock variation and an amount of Rs.5,000/-was ordered to be recovered as fine, as per Ext.P5 proceedings dated 04.07.2017. 4. The petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal dated 20.07.2017 before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The appeal was dismissed by the Civil Supplies Commissioner as per Ext.P7 proceedings dated 13.12.2017. The petitioner preferred Ext.P8 Revision Petition before the Government. The Government also rejected the Revision Petition as per Ext.P9 order dated 15.12.2018. Aggrieved by Exts.P5, P7 and P9, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the oral evidence given by the Rationing Inspector, he had stated that physical stock was not ascertained by the Inspection Team and only average stock position was taken counting gunny bags. The learned counsel argued that the stock variation found was due to random verification and if actual physical stock was taken, there would not have been any variation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of more than three years in issuing memo of charges and quantifying the amount, which has caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that when the inspection was conducted, neither the petitioner nor his salesman was present. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of more than three years in issuing memo of charges and quantifying the amount, which has caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that when the inspection was conducted, neither the petitioner nor his salesman was present. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Clause 51(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, the value of cost of the ration articles means value of the cost as per the bill of purchase. However, the amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner quantifying the amount taking the cost of the ration articles on economic rate. The quantification is therefore erroneous. 8. The 4th respondent-District Supply Officer opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the Inspection of the licenced premises showed variations in the stock and the stock was verified in the presence of the salesman of the petitioner. There is no merit in the argument of the petitioner that physical stock verification would have proved otherwise. Ext.P7 is a speaking order. 9. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the proceedings against the petitioner was delayed at the initial stages due to the pendency of appeals before the Director of Civil Supplies and due to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.34445/2010. Economic rate is the actual value of the ration articles without subsidy. The petitioner has misappropriated ration articles and hence he is bound to pay the amount. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 11. The main argument of the petitioner is that the quantification of variation in the ration articles was not done through physical verification with actual weighing. But, it has to be noted that the AWD of the petitioner is a wholesale depot and sealed gunny bags are brought to the godown from the Food Corporation of India godowns. The respondents have counted the number of sealed gunny bags to find out the weight of the physical stock. Therefore, it cannot be stated that actual stock of ration articles can be taken only through physical weighing. There is no merit in the argument of the petitioner in this regard. 12. The respondents have counted the number of sealed gunny bags to find out the weight of the physical stock. Therefore, it cannot be stated that actual stock of ration articles can be taken only through physical weighing. There is no merit in the argument of the petitioner in this regard. 12. Another contention of the petitioner is that the value of the ration articles was calculated based on economic price. The value ought to have been calculated at market rates. The respondents have adopted a price themselves to arrive at amount to be recovered. However, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that ‘Economic rate’ is the cost of the ration articles without applying subsidy. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in recovering amounts calculating the dues at economic rate. 13. The petitioner contends that inspection was conducted in the absence of the petitioner or his salesman. The pleadings in the writ petition would disclose that the licenced premises was inspected on 30.10.2010 in the presence of Mr. M.K. Dileep, the salesman who was in charge of the AWD. The argument of the petitioner in this regard is therefore only to be rejected. 14. The further contention of the petitioner is that there was a delay of more than three years after the inspection, in initiating proceedings. It is pointed out that appeals were pending before the Director of Civil Supplies and W.P.(C) No.34445/2010 filed by the petitioner was also pending. It was these proceedings which caused delay in taking action. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not pointed out any specific prejudice occurred to him due to the delay in initiating the proceedings. In the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to accept the argument of the petitioner in this regard. In view of the facts and reasons stated above, this Court finds no illegality in Exts.P5, P7 and P9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.