IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27488 of 2008 Between: Chetti Hari Kumar, S/o. Anand Kumar, aged 34 years, Occ: F.P. Shop Dealer (under suspension), R/o.11-55/1, China Bhaskaraveedhi, OPP: Ramakrishna Theatre, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and three others Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Krishna Prakash Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader, Civil Supplies The court made the following Order: The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer, has filed this writ petition questioning order Rc.No.1176/2008/A, dated 13-12-2009, passed by the third respondent, Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, suspending his authorization with regard to F.P.Shop No.14, at Mallaveedi, Bheemudigumma, Anakapalli, for a period of 90 days. The aforesaid order is passed mainly on the ground that the business premises of the petitioner was inspected and a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered and a report was submitted to the District Collector (CS), Visakhapatnam. Except the aforesaid ground, no other reason is indicated in the impugned order for suspending the authorization of the petitioner. As per the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008, Tahsildar is empowered to suspend the authorization of a dealer for a maximum period of 90 days. This court, by order dated 17-12-2008, in WPMP No.36005 of 2008, issued directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the shop in question pending further orders and the said order continued all along. In the absence of any reason indicated in the impugned order, as contemplated under the Control Order, there appears no reason to suspend the authorization of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 13-12-2009, passed, in Rc.No.1176/2008/A, by the third respondent, Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. If there are any allegations against the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry on such allegations and taking appropriate action thereon. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 6, 2010 MRR