THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2193 of 2011 Dated 04th February, 2011 Between: Smt.A.Devaki Devi …Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Nandiwada Mandal, at Nandiwada, Krishna District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 05.12.2010, of the respondent, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation. I have heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is fair price shop dealer of shop No.24 of Ilaparru Village, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District. On the basis of an inspection made by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, PDS, Gudivada on 20.11.2010, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings. A perusal of this proceeding shows that on the ground that certain alleged irregularities were detected during inspection, the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation is suspended. In the subject mentioned in the impugned order, the respondent has indicated that the orders are being passed by suspending the authorisation for a period of three months. But, however, in the body of the order, the respondent has given a specific finding that the petitioner has violated Clause-17(B) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Order’) and therefore, his authorization is suspended for a period of three months. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is in the nature of substantive punishment without issuing a show-cause notice. Under Clause-5 of the Order, the appointing authority is the disciplinary authority, which can impose penalties after enquiry. However, the Tahsildar is empowered to suspend the authorisation for a limited period of 90 days, pending enquiry by the appointing authority. The impugned order is silent on the proposed enquiry by the appointing authority. The respondent has neither the power to hold enquiry nor pass a final order of suspension, and the limited power conferred on him to suspend the authorization for a period of three months is only pending enquiry to be held by the appointing authority. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed as a measure of penalty cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the appointing authority i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, to initiate appropriate enquiry and pass a final order, if he is prima facie satisfied that material exists for taking such an action against the petitioner. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2718 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th February, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB