K.M. Joseph, J The appellant in the Writ Petition is the Review Petitioner. The writ Petition is filed by her challenging Ext.P1, P2, P4,P5, P6 and P8. She was running ARD. Noting irregularities and after issuing a memo of charges by the District Supply Officer the authorisation given to the petitioner was cancelled. The appeal and further revision which was pursued before the Secretary to Government proved unsuccessful. Accordingly the writ petition was filed. The Writ Petition was dismissed and in the writ appeal the dismissal was affirmed. 2. We heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would in fact submit that the court may call for the records as it would reveal R.P.397/14 2 what had really happened. The matter came to a head following the falling out between the petitioner and her husband and it is her husband's brother who was behind the whole thing.
4. We noted in our judgment that there are serious allegations. She being an agent in the public distribution system, we cannot find the order of cancellation to be afflicted by disproportionate State action.
In review, we do not think we would be justified in embarking on a further enquiry as sought by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. We find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
Sou.
// True copy //