IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.22529 of 2008 Between: D. Vijaya Kumari W/o. Pochaiah, Dharmaram V & M, Karimnagar District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 2 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 The District Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in suspending the Authorization of the petitioner vide Proc.No.D/2241/2008, dt. 19.08.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of APPDS Control Order, 2001 and consequentially the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned Proc. Rc.No.D/2241/08, dt. 19.08.2008 by declaring as illegal and may pass such other order or orders in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.22529 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the authorised dealer of the fair price shop of Dharmaram Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. The 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer – issued a show-cause notice dated 19.8.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why her authorization should not be suspended alleging that the petitioner was found to have contravened Clause.17 (C) and Conditions 4, 8, 12 & 14 of the authorization under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, (for short, ‘Control Order, 2008’) in the inspection of the fair price shop conducted by the Assistant Supply Oﬃcer on 14.8.2008. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 2.9.2008. Thereupon the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 came to be passed by the 1st respondent suspending the authorization with immediate effect. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension which is in the nature of substantive punishment without conducting the enquiry as required under law is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Clause-5 (5) of the Control Order, 2008 empowers the appointing authority to suspend or cancel the authorization after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the 2nd proviso to Clause-5 (7), the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant Supply Oﬃcer/Tahsildar concerned can also exercise the power of suspension of authorization and tag on the cards to the nearest fair price shop pending ﬁnal action by the appointing authority for a period of 90 days only. From the above provisions, it is clear that the suspension pending ﬁnal action by the appointing authority can be for a maximum period of 90 days. So far as the suspension of authorization under clause 5 (5) is concerned, the same being a substantive punishment, it is for the appointing authority to ﬁx the period of suspension of authorization having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, apparently the impugned order of suspension falls under Clause-5 (5) of the Control Order, 2008, which provides for suspension of authorisation as a substantive punishment. However, surprisingly, the 1st respondent failed to specify the period of suspension thereby virtually making it an order of cancellation which was not the action proposed under the show-cause notice. It appears from the impugned order that an enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) has also been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the very same alleged contraventions which resulted in the impugned order of suspension. Even if any proceedings are pending under Section 6-A of the Act, the law is well-settled that there cannot be suspension of authorization till the conclusion of such proceedings and it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to make an independent enquiry under the provisions of the Control Order, 2008. The failure of the 1st respondent to specify the period of suspension shows that the impugned order was passed without application of mind to the facts on hand as well as the relevant provisions of the Control Order. Thus the impugned order suﬀered from an error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders afresh following due process of law. No costs. ____________ (G.ROHINI, J) 16th October 2008 Note: CC in four days B/O RRB