IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15468 of 2009 Between: Smt.G.Revathamma W/o.G.Sudarshan Reddy R/o.R.Garlapad Village, Itikyala Mandal Mahaboobnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District 2 The Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar District Mahaboobnagar 3 The REvenue Divisional Officer,Gadwala, Mahaboobnagar District 4 The Tahsildar, Itikyala Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.L.SURENDRA Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 18.07.2009 passed by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the petitioner before him against order, dated 26.06.2009 passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of R.Garlapad Village, Itikyala Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. On the ground that she is not residing in the Village and her father Sri K.Janaki Rami Reddy is distributing essential commodities in one or two days in a month, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by respondent No.3 vide his order, dated 26.06.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 and also application for stay. Her application for stay was rejected by respondent No.3 by the impugned order. I have heard Sri V.L.Surendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. As noted above, the only ground on which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended was that she was not residing in the Village and her father is distributing the commodities on her behalf. There are no allegations of any commissions and omissions on the part of the petitioner or her father in distribution of essential commodities. Though the allegation of the petitioner not residing in the place where the shop is situated and permanently allowing one of her family members to distribute the commodities constitutes misconduct, in my considered view, the said allegation does not warrant immediate suspension of petitioner’s fair price shop authorization unless there are serious complaints of improper distribution of essential commodities on account of the absence of the petitioner and her entrusting the job of distribution to her father. Prima facie, no such allegations have been made in the order passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2, who is the appellate authority, failed to give any reasons whatsoever to reject the petitioner’s application for stay. On the facts of this case, I am convinced that the power of suspension vested in respondent No.3 is arbitrarily exercised by him. Accordingly, order of respondent No.2 is set aside and consequently, order of respondent No.3 is also set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue as fair price shop dealer till completion of the enquiry initiated against her by respondent No.3. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st JULY, 2009. kvni