THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.19409 of 2011 ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole in Rc.G/2393/2011, dated 13-06-2011, suspending the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, as illegal. 2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No.49 of Gudipudivaripalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. On 07-06-2011, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi along with Additional Food Inspector, Ongole and other revenue staff inspected the shop and noticed that the petitioner had committed several irregularities. After verifying the registers and the stock available in the shop, variation was noticed in the stock of PDS rice and kerosene. Accordingly, a report dated 08-06-2011 was laid before the 2nd Respondent, who after taking cognizance of the same, passed the impugned order suspending the authorization pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the preset Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri I.Gopala Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order contending that no notice was given to the petitioner seeking his explanation into the allegations and that no enquiry was conducted before passing the order. He submits that the 2nd Respondent is under an obligation to summon witnesses, examine them or at least visit the shop before acting on the report of the inspecting officers. He further submits that the 2nd Respondent has not assigned any reasons in support of the decision and the report of the inspecting staff and the panchanama cannot be made a valid ground for suspending the authorization. He therefore contends that the impugned order is opposed to the principles of natural justice and contrary to clause (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008. 5. The learned Government Pleader however submits that the impugned order is not a final order. The 2nd Respondent is competent to pass an order suspending the authorization pending enquiry. No enquiry is required for exercising the power to keep the authorization under suspension pending enquiry. He submits that the material placed before the 2nd Respondent is sufficient warranting suspension. He therefore contends that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid. 6. In the light of the above, the questions that arise for consideration are : (i) Whether an enquiry shall be conducted into the allegations before suspending an authorization as an interim measure; and (ii) Whether a dealer is entitled for notice before an order is passed suspending the authorization, pending enquiry. 7. Under Clause-5 (7) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 the appointing authority is vested with the power to add, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization. For better appreciation, the said clause is extracted below : “(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (4), (5) and (6) above, where a fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) relating to any of the commodities mentioned in the Schedule to this Order, the appointing authority, shall, by order in writing, cancel his authorization: Provided that such conviction is set aside in any appeal or revision, the appointing authority may, on application in Form-1 made by the person whose authorization has been cancelled, reissue the authorization to such person : Provided further that the disciplinary authority viz. Assistant Supply Officer/Tahsildar concerned shall also exercise the power of suspending the authoritarian of the erring F.P. Shop dealer and tagging on the cards to the nearest F.P. Shop pending final action by the appointing authority, for a period (90) ninety days only. Further action of continuing the suspension beyond (90) ninety days or cancellation of authorization shall be taken by the “appointing authority’ as well as the disciplinary authority viz. Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub- Collector/District Supply Officers.” 8. Under Sub-Clause-7 of Clause-5 the appointing authority is vested with power to cancel the authorization where a dealer has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to commodities mentioned in the schedule to the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Under the 2nd proviso thereof, the disciplinary authority is vested with power of suspending the authorization pending final action by the appointing authority for a period of 90 days. 9. From the aforesaid provisions it is evident that an authorization is liable for suspension or cancellation as the case may be for contravention of the provisions of the Control Order. It is true that the aforesaid clauses do not specifically provide for suspending an authorization pending enquiry, but as a corollary such power is inherent in an authority. Suspension of an authorization of a fair price shop as can be deciphered from the Control Order is therefore of two kinds. An order of suspension may be passed by way of punishment in terms of Clause-5 of the Order. An order of suspension can also be passed by a competent authority in exercise of its inherent power temporarily pending enquiry. Suspension pending enquiry into the allegations is interim in nature and does not involve punishment. By such an action the dealership is not put an end to, but the dealer merely ceases to function by keeping his right to deal with the commodities in abeyance. Such orders will cease to exist once an order is passed after an enquiry. An order of suspension pending enquiry does not result either in the cancellation of authorization or the removal of a person from dealership. At this stage when this power is exercised, no conclusive findings need be recorded nor is it possible to do so. 10. Suspension pending enquiry is a step-in-aid to the ultimate result of enquiry and it is not a result by itself. An authority at this stage is not even expected to deal with the matter expressing his mind on the final result or render findings affecting the final outcome. In fact it is desirable that the authority shall refrain from dealing with the matter at this stage as if the proceedings are final. Therefore, it is not warranted or desirable to issue a show cause notice and invite explanation before exercising the power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry. In fact if show cause notice is issued calling for explanation and an order is passed considering the explanation, the order so passed will lose its nature as an interim order. Therefore, I hold that neither enquiry need be conducted into the allegations nor a dealer is entitled for notice before an order is passed suspending authorization pending enquiry. 11. However, it shall be mentioned that keeping authorization under suspension is not an invariable rule. An authority before suspending an authorization pending enquiry shall apply its mind having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It should be guided by the necessity or otherwise of such an action and the nature of allegations. The authority shall necessarily have due regard to the prima facie case and public interest in mind. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have diverted the rice meant for public distribution system to the black market, besides committing irregularities in the distribution of kerosene. It is also alleged that the shop is run by a benami at an unauthorized place other than the designated location. A perusal of the order shows the 2nd Respondent has taken note of the said irregularities and suspended the licence pending enquiry. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any illegality or any other infirmity. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19-07-2011. Skmr/JS L.R. copy to be marked.