IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26068 of 2008 Between: Smt.Mummadi Padmavathi W/o.Venkateswarlu Polireddypalem Village, Doravari Satram Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Nellore District. 3 The Tahsildar, Doravari Satram Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.B.210/2008 dated 06.10.2008 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner's F.P. Shop of Polireddypalem, D.V. Satram Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and against the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2008 and set-aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 26068 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the order of the 3rd Respondent passed in Proceeding No. B-210/2008, dated 6-10- 2008 suspending the authorization of the petitioner against the Fair Price Shop of Polireddypalem, D.V. Satram Mandal, Nellore District as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System ( Control Order, 2008). 2. According to the petitioner, the authorization held by him against the Fair Price Shop, of Polireddypalem, D.V. Satram Mandal, Nellore District was suspended on certain allegations made against him by the Tahsildar, D.V. Satram Mandal. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that 3rd Respondent-Tahsildar has no jurisdiction or authority to pass an order of suspension of this nature. If the authorization needs to be suspended by a Tahsildar, he can do so for a period of 90 days. Since the period is not indicated, it must be deemed that the authorization of the petitioner is suspended during the pendency of the enquiry contemplated against him. Such a power is not vested with the Tahsildar. 4. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The 90 days time would lapse on 3-1-2009, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tahsildar stating that the authorization of the petitioner is suspended till the pendency of the enquiry. 5. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to restore the authorization of the petitioner, if it is not extended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, concerned before expiry of (90) days, and the petitioner shall be permitted to carry on his business. 5, With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu 29th December, 2008. Note : C.C. in a week B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 26068 OF 2008 29th December, 2008.