THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.22032 of 2008 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is the fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Balijapalle village, N.P.Kunta Mandal, Anantapur District. The authorisation granted to him was suspended on certain allegations by proceedings dated 28.05.2008. However, after framing charges and considering the explanation offered by the petitioner the primary authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda by proceedings dated 02.09.2008 issued in R.C.No.930 of 2008, by recording a finding that the charges framed against the petitioner have not been proved, restored the authorisation of the petitioner with a warning and also by imposing a fine of Rs.500/-. 2 On the ground that a fresh complaint was received, without recording any reasons, the authorisation of the petitioner was again suspended by the impugned proceedings issued in R.C.No.930/2008 C, dated 20.09.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition. 3 At the stage of admission, this court suspended the impugned order of suspension vide order dated 30.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.28686 of 2008 and the said order was also made absolute on 06.09.2010. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5 In the order dated 02.09.2008 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, with reference to each of the charges framed against the petitioner and by considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, recorded a finding that the charges are not proved in the enquiry. By recording so, he ordered for restoration of the authorisation of the petitioner, however, with a warning and by imposing a fine of Rs.500/-. 6 In spite of the fact that all the charges were already enquired into and a clear finding being given to the effect that the charges were not proved, again the impugned order has been passed suspending the authorisation of the petitioner on the ground that a fresh complaint has been received by him from the villagers on 15.09.2008. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 20.09.2008, it is clear that there are no fresh charges against the petitioner and it is only by referring to the same set of charges which were already enquired into and covered by order dated 02.09.2008 issued in R.C.No.930 of 2008, the impugned order is passed. When once the charges were framed, enquiry was conducted and final orders were passed by recording a finding that the charges were not proved and ultimately ordered for restoration of the authorisation, it is not open for the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass the impugned order of suspension only on the ground that a fresh petition was received by him. The impugned order is not only contrary to the provisions made under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. When once an enquiry was conducted and authorisation was restored, it is not open for the Revenue Divisional Officer to again suspend the authorisation of the petitioner again on the same set of charges. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.930/2008 C dated 20.09.2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda is hereby quashed. No costs. ------------------------ R.Subhash Reddy, J. 18.10.2011 Kvsn