THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7890 of 2010 13.04.2010 Between: Gurram Venkata Subramanyam ….Petitioner AND The Joint Collector (CS Wing), Prakasam District, Ongole and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7890 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a dealer of Fair Price Shop (FPS) No.31, Perala, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. The fourth respondent inspected petitioner’s shop on 22.01.2010 and alleged that there are contraventions. First respondent initiated action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity). A show cause notice dated 15.02.2010 was issued under Section 6-B of the Act. A month thereafter, on 20.03.2010, second respondent issued notice advising petitioner to appear in the enquiry. Petitioner appeared and submitted explanation denying allegations. Petitioner alleges that there was no order of suspension passed under proviso to clause 5(7) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (Control Order, for brevity) but essential commodities were not supplied for public distribution. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition. The matter was heard on 09.04.2010. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies sought time for getting instructions. Today, she placed before this Court the proceedings No.Rc.G/390/2010, dated 29.03.2010 whereby and whereunder second respondent suspended the authorization of petitioner pending enquiry. A copy of the same is issued to counsel for petitioner. He submits that as an afterthought second respondent passed orders suspending authorization. He also points out that when notice dated 20.03.2010 was issued, there was not even a whisper or communication that the authorization is suspended. Petitioner appeared before second respondent on 27.03.2010. Even on that day, it was not informed about order of suspension. When petitioner filed the writ petition on 07.04.2010 complaining about non-supply of essential commodities, second respondent passed orders suspending authorization. Though the argument made by counsel for petitioner is very impressive and plausible, having regard to the right of appeal under clause 20 of the Control Order, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner can prefer appeal against order of suspension, dated 29.03.2010. The appellate authority shall consider appeal keeping in view the observations made herein above. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.04.2010 Pln