IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8216 of 2008 Between: G. Murali Krishna S/o. Satyanarayana Magathapalli Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 06.04.2008 issued by respondent No.2 and the action of the respondents in not releasing the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents and perused the record. By proceedings, dated 19.02.2008 issued by respondent No.1, certain stocks, which were seized based on the inspection conducted on 24.10.2007, were confiscated to the extent of 60% of their value under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said direction was based on the premise that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner did not question the said order and thereby allowed the same to become final. However, respondent No.2, who simultaneously issued proceedings for cancellation of authorization, passed order dated: .03.08, whereby he restored the petitioner’s authorization with a warning to be more careful in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. A few days thereafter, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice, dated 06.04.2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his authorization should not be cancelled. A perusal of the said show cause notice shows that on 30.03.2008, one N.Nageswara Rao and two other villagers filed a petition before respondent No.2 wherein the alleged omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner in running the fair price shop were mentioned. The present writ petition is filed questioning the said show cause notice. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is the appointing as well as disciplinary authority. He issued the impugned show cause notice on the basis of the petition filed by three villagers. As a disciplinary authority, he is entitled to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. If the petitioner has any legal and valid objections to the proposal to cancel his authorization, he is entitled to file his explanation and convince respondent No.2 that initiation of fresh proceedings after passing order by him restoring the petitioner’s authorization is not proper. The petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the issue of show cause notice by respondent No.2. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain writ petitions filed questioning show cause notice, unless the authority issuing show cause notice has no jurisdiction for issuing such a notice. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Since grant of two days’ time for filing explanation is unreasonable, the petitioner is permitted to file his objections within a period of four (4) weeks from today and on receipt of such objections, respondent No.2 shall consider the same after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders. Till then, the petitioner shall be continued as fair price shop dealer. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10849 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th APRIL, 2008 kvni