IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2009 Dt.18.1.2010 Between: M. Nagendra … Appellant And K. Ramanjaneyulu and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Nasaraiah Golla Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: G.P. for Civil Supplies THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The authorization of respondent No.1, a fair price shop dealer of Anandaraopet Village, Singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District, was suspended by order dt.06.10.2009 passed by respondent No.3 on two charges. Charge No.1 pertains to irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and diversion of certain quantities of rice and kerosene oil into black-market every month. Charge No.2 pertains to the involvement of respondent No.1 in a criminal case. Questioning the order of suspension, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for stay. While the appeal was entertained and kept pending, no orders have been passed by respondent No.2 on the stay application. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.25618 of 2009, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the direction to respondent No.3 to restore the authorization and supply the essential commodities to enable respondent No.1 to distribute the same to the cardholders during the pendency of the appeal. This order is assailed in the Writ Appeal by the appellant, who is a cardholder and respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition. We have heard Sri Nasaraiah Golla, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri K. Srinivas, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the record. Though the appellant has not filed a copy of the suspension order, he passed on the same at the hearing. Charge No.1 contained in the order of suspension, reads as under: “That the FP Shop dealer has shown the following ration cards in his accounts and received the essential commodities every month though the cardholders were not residing in the village. He has diverted 4.28 Qtls. of rice and 30 Liters of K. oil into black market for every month for his pecuniary gains.” In his order, the learned Single Judge held that as respondent No.1 was acquitted of the criminal case, the said charge no longer exists. As regards charge No.1, the learned Single Judge held that according to the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short, the ‘Control Order’), if a fair price shop dealer draws the commodities by making false entries, though such cardholders are not residing in that area, the dealer shall compensate to the Government the loss sustained on account of such an act. Prima facie, a perusal of Charge No.1 shows that not only respondent No.1 is accused of drawing commodities from the ration cards pertaining to cardholders who are not the residents of the village, but also he had allegedly diverted 4.28 Qtls. of rice and 30 liters of kerosene oil into black-market. Under Clause 17(c) of the Control Order, diversion of essential commodities into black-market attracts the penalty of cancellation of authorization. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the charge is not serious enough warranting suspension of authorization. On a serious charge such as charge No.1, suspension of authorization, pending enquiry into such charge, cannot be said to be unwarranted. Therefore, the order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. As the appeal pending before respondent No.2 pertains to suspension of authorization, and the enquiry into the charges is pending before respondent No.3, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 agreed that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry and pass final order instead of directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order within six weeks from today. Pending enquiry and passing a final order, respondent No.3 is permitted to make alternative arrangement for distribution of essential commodities in respect of the cardholders attached to the shop held by respondent No.1. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.3103 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18.01.2010 bnr