IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22004 of 2008 Between: Bojja Sesha Reddy S/o. Late Pulla Reddy Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 The Tahsildar/Mandal Revemie Officer, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool 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 to issue a writ order or direction more especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in directing neighbouring shop delaer to distribute the commodities of the petitioner Shop No.1 of Pulimaddi Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District by not accepting the DD Drawn by the petitioner for releas or commodities for the month of October, 2008 even though petitioner authorization and license are subsisting as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to distribute the commodities for the month of October and thereafter subsisting authorization and license and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22004 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Pulimaddi Village Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation on the four charges as speciﬁed in the show cause notice and later the petitioner submitted his explanation. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that thereafter the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to continue the shop and the essential commodities for distribution to the cardholders are not being released. It is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that the authorization of the petitioner is subsisting as on today. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Though it is open to the respondents to suspend or cancel the authorization on the ground of contravention of any provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause 5(5), if no steps are taken and the authorization is subsisting, the respondents are bound to release the stocks to the dealer. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders, provided the authorization to the petitioner is subsisting as on today. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 18-10-2008 Note: Issue CC In two Days (B/O) *TSNR