ORDER : Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. Heard Smt. Y. Mahalakshmi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Ramamohan, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri G. Raju, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2. The prayer sought in this Writ Petition is as under: It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the order of cancellation passed by the 4th respondent in R.O.C.No.A3/2430/2004 dt. 27.12.2006 as confirmed by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings D.Dis.No C1/150/2007 dt. 21.11.2007 as well as the Impugned Order of the 2nd respondent dt. 13.10.2014 vide D.Dis.No.(C1)/351/2008 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and pass such order or orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR WRIT PETITIONER: 3. Smt. Y. Mahalakshmi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner has submitted the facts to the effect that the Writ Petitioner was a Fair Price Shop Dealer since 07.06.1996; that Respondent No.4 issued Show Cause Notice basing on the Report of the Respondent No.5; that consequently, the Sub-Collector has cancelled the Authorization of the Writ Petitioner in Roc.No.A3/2430/2004 on 27.12.2006 (Ex.P.1); that Petitioner filed an Appeal which was dismissed by the Respondent No.3 by Order dated 21.11.2007 (Ex.P.2); that in the Revision Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 granted Interim Stay on 12.12.2007 (Ex.P.4); that basing on the Interim Order granted by Respondent No.2 in the Revision Petition, the Respondent No.5 has released the stock on 21.01.2008; that the District Collector finally dismissed the Revision Petition on 09.02.2008 (Ex.P.5); that the Petitioner filed W.P.No.6389 of 2008 along with W.P.M.P.No.8346 of 2008; that on 27.03.2008, this Court passed an Interim Order (Ex.P.7) staying the Orders of the District Collector passed in the Revision Petition with a direction to supply the Essential Commodities; and that, the Interim Order dated 27.03.2008 was made absolute in W.V.M.P.No.3054 of 2008 on 13.09.2010 (Ex.P.8). 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has further submitted that this Hon’ble Court by an Order dated 26.02.2014, had disposed of W.P.No.6389 of 2008 (Ex.P.9) by setting aside the Order passed by the District Collector in the Revision Petition by directing the District Collector, to issue Notice to the Writ Petitioner and dispose of the Revision Petition within a period of six months; that the District Collector and Respondent No.2, in compliance with the Orders of this Court, fixed a date for hearing on 13.06.2014; thereupon the Respondent No.2 had issued Notice to the Writ Petitioner on 15.06.2014 indicating that the hearing will take place on 21.06.2014; the Respondent No.2 sent another Notice on 23.06.2014 indicating that the hearing in the Revision Petition will take place on 28.06.2014; that on 28.06.2014, the Respondent No.2 issued Notice and adjourned the matter to 07.07.2014 since neither the party nor the Counsel were present; that when none appeared even on 07.07.2014, the Respondent No.2 posted the matter to 14.08.2014; that the Respondent No.2 again issued Notice on 14.08.2014 indicating that the hearing will take place on 23.08.2014; and that finally on 13.10.2014, the Revision Petition was disposed of (dismissed), thereby, resulting in the cancellation of the Authorization of the Writ Petitioner on the following ground : “The charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and all the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the orders of the appointing authority by cancelling the Authorization is legal and based on Valid Grounds.” 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Impugned Order was passed by the Respondent No.2 in violation of the principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the Order was passed without hearing either the Petitioner or the Counsel. Learned Counsel has also stated that on the earlier occasion also, the Respondent No.2 had disposed of the Revision Petition without hearing the Revision Petitioner on 21.01.2008 and that the said Order was set aside by this Court on 26.02.2014 in W.P.No.6389 of 2008. Learned Counsel has also projected health issues pertaining to the Petitioner and also that the husband of the Petitioner met with an accident on 10.06.2018, to submit that the Petitioner is in distress on account of various problems and therefore, sympathetic view should also be taken by this Court. 6. Learned Counsel has also projected health issues pertaining to the Petitioner and also that the husband of the Petitioner met with an accident on 10.06.2018, to submit that the Petitioner is in distress on account of various problems and therefore, sympathetic view should also be taken by this Court. 6. Smt. Y. Mahalakshmi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments : i. Gondu Chinnammadu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : (MANU/AP/0507/2021 (W.P.No.5800 of 2020, Dt. 06.04.2021)). Para No.19 of this Judgment is relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to submit that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which perform the functions of a Quasi-judicial Authority, are required to adjudicate disputes strictly under the Control Order and that there is a requirement on the part of the Respondents to pass a reasoned order; ii. Sri C. Durga Srinivas Rao and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : ( (2015) 6 ALD 359 ). Para No.47 of this Judgment is relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to submit that the due procedure shall be followed while cancelling the Authorization for the alleged violations/irregularities. It is submitted that the principles of Natural Justice have not been followed inasmuch as the sufficient opportunity has not been given to the Writ Petitioner to present her case; iii. B. Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies and Ors. : (MANU/AP/2339/2014 (W.P.No.32713 of 2011 Dt. 26.11.2014) : 2015 (3) ALD 617 ). Para Nos.9 and 14 of this Judgment is relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to submit that since the cancellation of Fair Price Shop visits the Dealer with adverse consequences, the Appointing Authority must adhere to the fundamental ingredients of an Enquiry and that the Order should reflect the reason for arriving at an adverse decision; iv. K. Santha Kumar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors. : (MANU/AP/0050/2010 : 2010 (3) ALD 198 ). Para No.7 of this Judgment is relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to submit that every executive action of any nature must be supported by reasons and that in all situations reasons should be communicated to the persons at whose instance a decision is taken. SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS: 7. Para No.7 of this Judgment is relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to submit that every executive action of any nature must be supported by reasons and that in all situations reasons should be communicated to the persons at whose instance a decision is taken. SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS: 7. Sri G. Raju, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the contrary, submitted that the variation that is found in this case is huge i.e., up to 20.7% whereas the variation to be treated as a minor variation should be below 1.5%. Apart from the variation in rice stock, there are variations in respect of other commodities also. This apart, Learned Counsel would submit that one Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village, has deposed that he had purchased 50 Kgs of rice from the Fair Price Shop Dealer namely the Writ Petitioner and that the carrying of the 50 kgs Bag rice on his bicycle was witnessed by several persons in the Village. 8. Learned Counsel would submit that the Village Sarpanch had, as an eyewitness, given a statement to the Sub-Collector on 24.06.2004; that the statement of the Sarpanch which is the eyewitness account of confronting Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village along with rice bag on the bicycle was supported by 86 Villagers; that the Panchanama would also indicate that the Petitioner was indulging in unauthorized sale of rice supplied to her under the Public Distribution System. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint given by the Sarpanch to the Sub Collector on 24.06.2004 along with the supporting signatures of 86 villagers under the Memo filed by the Learned Counsel on 21.06.2023. 9. This apart, Learned Counsel would also submit that the Writ Petitioner has chosen the method of non-appearance every time and approached this Court and got an Interim Order. Learned Counsel has submitted that the District Collector has taken note of the modus operandi adopted by the Writ Petitioner in both the rounds of litigation about the non-prosecution of her case before the Authorities. That, in the said premise, the District Collector was, therefore, constrained to pass an Order in Revision Petition on 21.08.2008 since no one appeared on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and on account of the habitual default by the Writ Petitioner. 10. That, in the said premise, the District Collector was, therefore, constrained to pass an Order in Revision Petition on 21.08.2008 since no one appeared on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and on account of the habitual default by the Writ Petitioner. 10. He submits that in W.P.No.6389 of 2008 (first round of litigation), the Petitioner secured an Interim Order on 27.03.2008 staying the Orders of the District Collector with a further direction to supply the Essential Commodities; that under the said Interim Order dated 27.03.2008, the Petitioner continued with her Dealership without any hindrance from 27.03.2008 upto 26.09.2014; that when this Court disposed of W.P.No.6389 of 2008 on 26.02.2014 (first round of litigation) with a direction to consider the matter on merits after issuing Notice to the Revision Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner has committed deliberate defaults in appearing either personally or through Counsel with an evil intent to gain undue advantage once again i.e. by repeating the trick of default and plead violation principles of Natural Justice. 11. Learned Counsel would further submit that even from the Order which is impugned herein passed by Respondent No.2 on 13.10.2014, it is clear that the District Collector was constrained to dispose of the Revision Petition of the Petitioner by proceeding Ex-parte after giving several opportunities, to which effect, it is clearly recorded in the Impugned Order. 12. Sri G. Raju, Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that this is not a fit case that this Hon’ble Court should show indulgence as regards the wilful and deliberate non-appearance even in the second round of litigation and that on merits of the case, the Writ Petitioner has been habitually indulging in illegal sale of rice supplied to her for the purpose of Public Distribution System. REJOINDER OF LD. COUNSEL FOR WRIT PETITIONER: 13. Ld. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, in Re-joinder, has referred to certain documents placed on the file of this Court by way of a Memo on 24.07.2023. Learned Counsel has referred to an Explanation submitted by the Petitioner and also another Letter submitted by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village. Letter submitted by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village, is to the effect that he has not purchased any rice from the Petitioner and that nobody had confronted him while he was carrying the rice. 14. Learned Counsel has referred to an Explanation submitted by the Petitioner and also another Letter submitted by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village. Letter submitted by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village, is to the effect that he has not purchased any rice from the Petitioner and that nobody had confronted him while he was carrying the rice. 14. However, this Court, after sifting the said documents, is of the view that neither the Explanation submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the so called clarification given by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa, bears any date. Learned Counsel has also submitted a Letter which is supposed to have been signed by some of the villagers to the effect that the Writ Petitioner has been doing her job sincerely and without committing any illegalities. This Letter is signed by some of the Ration Card Holders with their Card Numbers but this also does not bear any date. 15. At this stage, Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that these documents have never seen the light and that for the first time the Writ Petitioner has produced these documents before this Court by a Memo dated 24.07.2023 and therefore, they cannot be considered. This Court would sustain the objections raised by Sri G. Raju, Learned Assistant Government Pleader in this regard. DISCUSSION: 16. The Docket of this Court in this case would indicate that on 28.11.2014, this Court passed the following Order : “A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.4, which was confirmed in appeal and revision by respondents 3 and 2 respectively, shows that no enquiry has been held by respondent No.4 before cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. Respondent No.4 has relied solely upon the two reports dated 25.06.2004 and 10.01.2006 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Shanthipuram. Therefore, the impugned order in ROC.No.A3/2430/2004 dated 27.12.2006 of respondent No.4, as confirmed by orders dated 21.11.2007 and 13.10.2014 of respondents 3 and 2 respectively, is suspended, to enable the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer, pending further orders.” 17. Therefore, the impugned order in ROC.No.A3/2430/2004 dated 27.12.2006 of respondent No.4, as confirmed by orders dated 21.11.2007 and 13.10.2014 of respondents 3 and 2 respectively, is suspended, to enable the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer, pending further orders.” 17. The Interim Order would indicate that the submission made before this Court on 28.11.2014 was to the effect that the Order passed by the Primary Authority namely the Respondent No.4 in ROC.No.A3/2430/2004, dated 27.12.2006 would indicate that no enquiry has been held by Respondent No.4 before cancelling the Petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Authorization and that the Respondent No.4 has relied solely upon two Reports dated 25.06.2004 and 10.01.2006, which were prepared by the Respondent No.5 herein. 18. The narration of facts in this case would indicate that the Order passed by Respondent No.4 was confirmed in Appeal by the Joint Collector on 21.11.2007 (Ex.P.2) and the District Collector had dismissed the Revision Petition, confirming the Orders passed by the Primary Authority (Respondent No.4) and the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.3), by Order dated 09.02.2008. The Final Order passed by the District Collector would indicate that neither the Petitioner nor the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner had attended the enquiry on 31.12.2007 and 21.01.2008. Since the Impugned Order was passed by the District Collector in the Revision 09.02.2008 in the absence of the Petitioner and her Counsel, this Court, by Order dated 26.02.2014 in W.P.No.6389 of 2008 (first round of litigation), granted one opportunity by remanding the matter back to the Collector to dispose of the same on merit after hearing the Parties by issuing Notice to the Parties (Ex.P.9). 19. The List of Dates supplied by the Petitioner herself would indicate that having due regard to the Order passed by this Court on 26.02.2014 in W.P.No.6389 of 2008, the District Collector had given number of opportunities to the Petitioner and her Counsel to present their case. But it appears from the List of Dates supplied by the Writ Petitioner itself that the opportunities granted to the Petitioner were not availed properly. It appears from the ‘List of Dates’ supplied by the Writ Petitioner now during the course of hearing that the matter was taken up by the District Collector on 04.06.2014, 13.06.2014, 21.06.2014, 23.06.2014, 28.06.2014, 07.07.2014, 14.08.2014, 23.08.2014, 08.10.2014 and finally on 13.10.2014 (Ex.P.10), the Revision Petition was disposed of. 20. It appears from the ‘List of Dates’ supplied by the Writ Petitioner now during the course of hearing that the matter was taken up by the District Collector on 04.06.2014, 13.06.2014, 21.06.2014, 23.06.2014, 28.06.2014, 07.07.2014, 14.08.2014, 23.08.2014, 08.10.2014 and finally on 13.10.2014 (Ex.P.10), the Revision Petition was disposed of. 20. On perusal of the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.2 in the Revision Petition bearing D.Dis.(C1) 351/2008, dated 13.10.2014 (Ex.P.10), it is noted as under : “The case was taken on file and posted for hearing on 13-06-2014. On 13-06-2014, the counsel has filed Vakalath and requested time for filing written arguments. Accordingly, the case was adjourned and posted on 21-06-2014 and after several adjournments, the case was come for hearing on 08-10-2014. The Counsel is absent despite of served the Notice. Husband of the petitioner was present and orally informed that this wife is not well. Heard the arguments and perused the records placed before me. The is the matter remanded by the Hon’ble High Court and there is a direction from the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.6389/2008 to dispose the revision within a period of Six months. The matter was already postponed once. For hearing of the case on 08-10-2014, Notice served to both the Counsel as well as Smt. M.P. Rani, petitioner herein.” 21. Having considered all the above facts, this Court has noticed that the Charges framed against the Writ Petitioner insofar as Charge Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are of a serious nature. Under Charge No.1, 50 kgs of rice was being carried on a bicycle by one Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village and the same was confronted by the Village Sarpanch and to that effect the Village Sarpanch had given a Report to the Sub Collector on 24.06.2004 (part of the record). The statement of the Village Sarpanch is supported by about 86 villagers. This statement of the Sarpanch is an eyewitness account. 22. The Writ Petitioner has only filed one statement/clarification alleged to have been given by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village, that he did not involve in any purchase of rice from the Petitioner but that Letter has not seen the light of day till date and that the Letter does not have any date as such. 22. The Writ Petitioner has only filed one statement/clarification alleged to have been given by Sri Ramappa Venkatappa of Boinapalli Village, that he did not involve in any purchase of rice from the Petitioner but that Letter has not seen the light of day till date and that the Letter does not have any date as such. In this view of the matter, the Charge No.1 against the Writ Petitioner is held to have been proved concurrently by all the authorities. 23. Insofar as the Charge No.2 is concerned, it appears that there is a variation of 9.68 quintals of Public Distribution System rice. The Primary Authority has found that the Explanation given by the Dealer is unconvincing and that this finding has been upheld consistently by the Appellate Authority (the Joint Collector) and Revisional Authority (the District Collector). 24. The Judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner have been considered in the light of the facts in the present case, there is no dispute about the legal position as annunciated by this Court in the Judgments cited on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. However, the facts in the present case are to the effect that the Appellate Authority has passed an Order basing on the Inspection Report of the Tahsildar, against which the Writ Petitioner filed Revision Petition before the District Collector. 25. The District Collector did in fact conduct an Enquiry and had afforded sufficient opportunities to the Writ Petitioner. It transpires from record that the matter was posted on various dates by the District Collector and there is non-appearance by the Writ Petitioner and her Counsel; and after sometime, the case has been posted for Final Orders and the District Collector passed the Final Order. The factum of non-appearance of the Writ Petitioner is true but the reason for non-appearance was solely at the behest of the Writ Petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court, in W.P.No.6389 of 2008, has thought it fit in all earnestness to afford one more opportunity to the Petitioner to present her case. On this reasoning, this Court, by Order dated 26.02.2014 in W.P.No.6389 of 2008, had disposed of the Writ Petition by remanding the matter to the District Collector to hear and dispose of the matter. On this reasoning, this Court, by Order dated 26.02.2014 in W.P.No.6389 of 2008, had disposed of the Writ Petition by remanding the matter to the District Collector to hear and dispose of the matter. The District Collector’s Order dated 13.10.2014 (2nd round of litigation) also would indicate that the District Collector was conscious of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.6389 of 2008 and had granted number of opportunities which are already mentioned supra. 26. In the 2nd round also, neither the Writ Petitioner nor her Counsel have appeared in the case and therefore, non-availing of the opportunity given was solely at the behest of the Writ Petitioner and her Counsel and therefore, the District Collector was constrained to proceed basing on the pleadings. In this view of the matter, the Judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner cannot come to the rescue of the Writ Petitioner. 27. Even for consideration on merits, this Court has shown indulgence once by remanding the matter to the District Collector by Order dated 26.02.2014 in W.P.No.6389 of 2008. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the District Collector made earnest efforts to give reasonable opportunities to the Writ Petitioner and her Counsel to present the case. The dates supplied by the Writ Petitioner from the ‘List of Dates’ as well as the observations recorded by the District Collector in the Impugned Order, would indicate that the Writ Petitioner and her Counsel did not avail several opportunities that were granted by the District Collector. 28. The conduct on the part of the Writ Petitioner has only compelled this Court to draw a firm conclusion that the Writ Petitioner had deliberately avoided the hearings fixed by the District Collector on various dates and this Court has also noticed that while the first Impugned Order was passed on 27.12.2006, the supply of the commodity was restored in favour of the Writ Petitioner by an Interim Order of the District Collector on 12.12.2007. Thereafter, the supply of essential commodities continued to the Writ Petitioner by an Interim Order granted by this Court on 27.03.2008 until 13.10.2014. Thereafter, by an Interim Order granted by this Court on 28.11.2014, the supply of essential commodities to the Writ Petitioner by the Respondents continued till date. 29. Thereafter, the supply of essential commodities continued to the Writ Petitioner by an Interim Order granted by this Court on 27.03.2008 until 13.10.2014. Thereafter, by an Interim Order granted by this Court on 28.11.2014, the supply of essential commodities to the Writ Petitioner by the Respondents continued till date. 29. This Court has noted that the District Collector, in the Revision Petition has considered even the irregularities committed by the Writ Petitioner vide Charge No.1 and Charge No.2, which are grave in nature. The person to whom the Writ Petitioner has sold 50 Kgs of rice was caught red-handed by not only the Sarpanch but also the Villagers, while the bag of rice was being carried by the purchaser (Sri M. Ramappa). To this effect, the District Collector, in the Impugned Order, has given a finding after considering the evidence on record. Insofar as the Charge No.2 is concerned, the variation of 9.68 quintals of Public Distribution System (PDS) rice, as noted during the inspection, could not be explained to the satisfaction of the Authorities. This Court is of the view that the District Collector has correctly held against the Writ Petitioner. Charge No.3 deals with the failure of the Writ Petitioner to produce records pertaining to ISL and FLWP stock. The non-production of the record has direct connection with the inability on the part of the Writ Petitioner to substantiate against Charge No.1 and Charge No.2. Charge Nos.4 and 5 appear to be minor in nature. But those Charges have also been held to be proved against the Writ Petitioner. This apart, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitioner enjoyed the undue advantage of continued supply of essential commodities from the Respondents till date. This Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. As the Writ Petitioner did not avail the opportunity granted by this Court to be heard by the District Collector, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is an abuse of process and therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed with an exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-. The costs shall be paid by the Writ Petitioner to the Government Exchequer within four weeks from today. 30. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.