IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5263 of 2008 Between: S.Padmavathi, W/o.V.Prasad, 40 years, Fair Price Shop Delaer, R/o.Yellanur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Governmetn of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. By its Ex-Officio Secretary to Government. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3 The Tahsildar, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 27-02-2008 passed by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Yellanur Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. On the purported inspection of the petitioner’s shop, respondent No.3 found that the petitioner indulged in certain irregularities in running her fair price shop. He, therefore, passed the impugned order, wherein he mentioned as under: ‘For the above charges Smt.S.Padmavathi is directed to show cause within 7 days from the date of receipt of the Show cause notice as to why the F.P.Shop authorization should not be cancelled, failing which, action will be taken on the material available on record.’ The learned Counsel for the petitioner attacked the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the same is passed far in excess of the jurisdiction of respondent No.3. He relied on G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06-10-2007, which reads 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 of (90) days only.’ From the above extracted provision, it is clear that the power of suspension of authorization, pending final action, is conferred on respondent No.3 to the limited extent viz., to suspend a fair price shop dealer for a period not exceeding 90 days. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.3 framed charges against the petitioner and invited the petitioner’s explanation thereon. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order of suspension is a part of the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3, and since respondent No.2 is the disciplinary authority, who alone is vested with the power of issuing show cause notice, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction. Even the impugned order of suspension is not limited to the period of ninety days, and hence, on this count also, respondent No.3 far too exceeded his jurisdiction. In the manner, in which the proceedings were issued, the show cause notice and suspension order are inseparable, and they are, therefore, quashed. Liberty is, however, given, to respondent No.3 to pass separate order for suspension of the petitioner’s authorization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06-10-2007, and to respondent No.2 to issue a show cause notice proposing cancellation of his authorization, at their discretion. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur