IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24008 of 2006 Between: D. Rajeswari, w/o. Dilli Babu, R/o. 2/66, Chavali Harijana Wada, C.L.N. Palle Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad. 2 Revnue Divisional Officer, (Appointing Authority under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Regulation of Distribution by Card System), Order, 1973), Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Varadaiahpalem, Chittoor 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, order or direction, declaring the proceedings in Roc C/2484/2006 dt. 9-11-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently suspend the operation of the said proceedings and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.C.D.SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO :24008 of 2006 ORDER: The writ petition is mis-conceived. The petitioner was granted authorization for a fair price shop in C.L.N. Palle Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. By an order of the 2nd respondent, dated 9.11.2006 (impugned), the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended pending enquiry, on the ground that she is not residing in the village and thus caused inconvenience to the cardholders and that by such conduct, the petitioner has violated the Conditions of Authorization issued under the A.P. Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2001. The 3rd respondent has also been directed in this order to make the adjacent fair price shop dealer in-charge of the C.L.N.Palle Village fair price shop, for distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders. In the writ petition, the petitioner singularly assails the impugned order on the ground that it is not preceded by any notice and opportunity and seeks to martial material to establish that she is a resident of C.L.N. Palle Village. It is not within the province of this Court to determine primary facts (sui generis), as to whether the petitioner is the resident of the village. The 2nd respondent is required to establish the facts and record conclusions on the basis of such established facts at the enquiry. In so far as the petitioner’s grievance that the impugned order is issued without any notice and opportunity of hearing is concerned, there is no extant principle, whereby a notice and opportunity should precede the order of suspension of an authorization, pending enquiry . Thus, the challenge to the impugned order is misconceived, as is the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 17.11.2006 stands dissolved. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 28th July, 2008 pnb