IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14884 of 2008 Between: S. Padmavathi W/o. V. Prasad R/o. Yellanur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government 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. 3 The Tahsildar, Yellanur Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent herein issued in Rc No. 50/2008 dt. 27-6-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :14884 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petitioner is a fair price shop authorizee of Shop No.10 of Yellanur Village and Mandal of Anantapur District. On 9.10.2007, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that she was not residing at Yellanur Village, but was permanently residing at Guntakal town along with her husband who was employed as Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. and was visiting the village only at the time of receipt of the essential commodities to the shop and for depositing of the D.Ds. and that she has thereby contravened the conditions of appointment and of the governing Control Order, namely, the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Later, on 27.2.2008, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings superscribed “show cause notice-cum-Suspension Order”. In this order, the 3rd respondent enumerated five charges including not residing in the village, variation in stocks vis-a-vis sale registers, that an authorized agent of the petitioner was distributing the commodities in violation of Clause 17(b)(c) of the Control Order, 2001; that the unauthorized agent had diverted 10.66 Qtls., of P.D.S. rice etc., for his pecuniary gains and thereby the petitioner had violated Condition No.22 (v) of the Control Order,2001 and that the unauthorized agent of the petitioner was not distributing the essential commodities properly to the card holders. Petitioner was called upon to show cause within the stipulated time, why the authorization should not cancelled. Assailing this composite order of suspension-cum-show cause notice, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5263 of 2008. This Court, by the judgment dated 3.4.2008, allowed the writ petition. The reason recorded by this Court for allowing the aforesaid writ petition was that the 3rd respondent was not the competent authority or the authority authorized to issue a show cause notice proposing cancellation and had a mere limited power, authority and jurisdiction to visit the fair price shop dealer with an order of suspension pending enquiry and for a period of 90 days. While quashing the order dated 27.2.2008, this Court preserved the liberty of the 3rd respondent to pass a separate order for suspension of the petitioner’s authorization in terms of his power as evident from the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 47, dated 6.10.2007 and also preserved the authority of the 2nd respondent to issue a show cause notice proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. The 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 27.6.2008 suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of shop No.4 of Yellanur village. The substratum for the order of suspension was mainly on three allegations with regard to variation in the ground stock, non-residence of the petitioner in the village concerned and running of the business through an unauthorized agent, apart from diversion of the stocks by such unauthorized agent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is invalid as the 3rd respondent has replicated the reasons set out in the earlier invalidated order dated 27.2.2008 in all substantive particulars except excluding the proposal relating to cancellation of authorization. This contention though factually true is without legal substance. This Court in the judgment in Writ Petition No. 5263 of 2008 had clearly spelt out the principle that the 3rd respondent had only the power of suspension of authorization for a limited period of 90 days and no power to issue show cause notice proposing cancellation of authorization. In the light of the statutory position as explicated by the judgment of this Court, the 3rd respondent has the power, authority and jurisdiction coupled with the discretion inherent in passing the impugned order of suspension of authorization without proposing cancellation of authorization with a show cause notice. The impugned order is, therefore, wholly in conformity with the jurisdictional limits of the 3rd respondent as spelt out in the judgment supra. The other grievance of the petitioner that the self-same allegations as contained in the order dated 27.2.2008 are replicated in the impugned order is also a grievance that has no substantive basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that she has indulged in any additional irregularities which were not incorporated. The same irregularities which had formed the basis of an earlier order of suspension are the substance of the current order of suspension of authorization. Regarding the other contention that due to non- mention of the period of 90 days for the operation of the order of suspension the impugned order is invalid, does not also commend acceptance by this Court. It is trite law that a limited authority cannot exceed the limits of such authority by the non-specification of the limits in the order. Since the authority of the 3rd respondent to pass the order of suspension pending enquiry is demonstrably and admittedly operative for a period of 90 days, as per Clause 5(7) of the current Control Order, namely, A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2008. The impugned order dated 27.6.2008 can operate only for a period of 90 days and no further. The silence in the impugned order of the specification of the 90 days operability of the order does not invalidate the order in its entirety. The second respondent disciplinary authority shall expeditiously dispose of the substantive enquiry initiated against the petitioner and conclude the same, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the aforesaid analysis and with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 11th July, 2008 pnb