IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24484 of 2008 Between: V. Kondaih, S/o. Bandaiah, Malkepally Village, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, (Civil Supplies), Adilabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. A/11/2008, dated 01-2-2008 of the Tahsildar, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and without jurisdiction and contrary to the orders of the Government issued in GO Ms.No. 47, dated 06- 10-2007 and also contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System Order 2008 and consequently set aside the same with a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Shop Dealer by releasing the stock every month. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24484 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Malkepally Village, Kasipet Mandal, Adilabad District. His authorization was suspended vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, Kasipet Mandal - dated 1.2.2008 pending disposal of the case initiated against him under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pursuant to the seizure of the stocks eﬀected from his shop on 16.01.2008. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that the suspension of the authorization pending disposal of the conﬁscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘E.C. Act’) is impermissible under law. It is also contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.47, Consumer Aﬀairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department, dated 6.10.2007, the period of suspension by the Tahsildar shall not exceed 90 days and therefore on that ground also the impugned order of suspension is liable to be set aside restoring the petitioner’s authorization forthwith. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Under G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 6.10.2007 the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 was amended by adding the second proviso to sub-clause (4) of Clause (5) which runs as under : “Provided further that the disciplinary authority viz. Assistant Supply Oﬃcer/Tahsildar concerned shall also exercise the power of suspending the authorization of the erring F.P. Shop dealer and tagging on the cards to the nearest F.P. Shop pending ﬁnal action by the appointing authority, for a period (90) ninety days only. Further action of continuing the suspension beyond (90) ninety days or cancellation of authorization shall be taken by the “appointing authority” as well as the disciplinary authority viz. Revenue Divisional Officers/District Supply Officers” A reading of the above proviso makes it clear that the Tahsildar is competent to suspend the authorization pending enquiry by the appointing authority for a maximum period of 90 days only. Such a provision restricting the period of suspension by the Tahsildar upto 90 days has also been continued in the second proviso to Clause-5 (7) of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. In the instant case, though the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 1.2.2008, the enquiry has not yet been completed. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, under instructions, stated that no independent enquiry has been taken up by the appointing authority – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer – so far. However, it appears that the enquiry under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act has been concluded and an order was passed on 8.4.2008 by the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad District confiscating the seized stocks. As noticed above, since the period of suspension of authorization by Tahsildar cannot exceed 90 days the action of the respondents in not restoring the petitioner’s authorization and not allowing him to distribute the commodities is arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1.2.2008 is hereby set aside and the authorization of the petitioner shall stand restored. However, this shall not preclude the 2 nd respondent to proceed with the enquiry following due process of law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to release the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders forthwith. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 13-11-2008 gbs Note: CC in 3 days. B/o gbs