THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3584 OF 2010 Dated: 18-02-2010 Between: B. Lakshmana Rao ... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3584 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities of Gurugubilli Village, Laveru Mandal of Srikakulam District and his appointment is governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short, ‘the Control Order’) framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Srikakulam. As there was a variation between the book balance and ground balance, alleging that 1.24 quintals of rice was found in excess, the Tahsildar, Laveru submitted a report. Basing on the said report of the Tahsildar, the impugned order of suspension, pending enquiry was passed by the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no reasons to suspend the authorisation of the petitioner and contrary to the Control Order the respondents are exercising such powers in an arbitrary manner. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that excess stock of rice was found in the business premises of the petitioner. It is open for the respondents to enquire into the same, but, however, in the absence of any material that the petitioner has diverted the stock to the black market, the respondents ought not to have suspended his authorisation. For the aforesaid reasons, I set aside order dated 20-11-2009 passed in Rc.No.2099/2009/H and direct the respondents to restore the supply of stocks to the petitioner, pending enquiry. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order stands withdrawn. However, it is open for the respondents to make an enquiry on the allegations made against the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18-02-2010 ks Note: Furnish copy in two days. B/O ks