THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14946 of 2011 Date: 07.06.2011 Between: Alluri Rajeswara Rao … Petitioner and The Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS) and Mandal Revenue Officer, Vissannapet Mandal, Krishna District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14946 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop dealer, has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.A/731/2011, dated 25.3.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid Division, Krishna District, whereby his authorization to run the Fair Price Shop has been suspended pending enquiry. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of Shop No.6 of Vissannapet Village and Mandal, Krishna District. On 16.3.2011, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Vissannapet, inspected the shop and found certain variations in the stock. Based on the report submitted by the said officer, the 2nd respondent, having prima-facie convinced of the irregularities alleged against the petitioner, has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Even though certain facts have been stated in the affidavit filed in support the writ petition, the impugned order is challenged, as presented during the course of hearing, on the sole ground that the said order has been ante-dated only to thwart the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9178 of 2011, dated 07.04.2011. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the said writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to allot the commodities to the petitioner’s shop till his authorization is varied in any manner. The said order was passed on 07.04.2011. It is, therefore, contended that as on the said date, the impugned order was not in existence. It is also stated that the impugned order was served on the petitioner on 16.4.2011. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that a presumption should be drawn that the impugned order has been passed ante-dated only to prevent the petitioner from running the Fair Price Shop. 6. I am unable to agree with the said contention. This Court repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the order in the writ petition was passed after notice to the respondents or at the stage of admission, but the learned counsel could not answer the same. 7. From a perusal of the order in W.P.No.9178 of 2011, dated 07.04.2011, it appears that the said order was passed at the stage of admission without notice to the respondents. Therefore, there cannot be any presumption that the impugned order was ante- dated. In all probability, the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when the order was passed by this Court. The petitioner has not disputed the correctness of the impugned order on any other ground. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition should fail and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 07.06.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14946 of 2011 07.06.2011 (Msr)