HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26919 of 2009 Dated: 17-06-2010 Between: S. Narayana Chetty. … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26919 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.14 of Old Peta in Chandragiri of Chittoor District. In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he hold valid authorisation covered by the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, respondents 1 to 3, without either suspending or cancelling the authorisation granted in his favour, are taking steps to entrust the distribution of scheduled commodities to respondent No.4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that based on the complaint made by the card holders on 23rd of December 2008, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri, has inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner on 23rd of May 2009, and noticed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. Therefore, he seized the commodities under Section 6-A (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and a report is submitted to the Joint Collector, Chittoor. It is further stated that subsequently, the authorisation of the petitioner was also kept under suspension by an order, dated 20.07.2009, passed by the 1st respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, in Proceedings Roc.No.K/397/2009, and the 4th respondent was appointed as a fair price shop dealer vide Proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 29.07.2009. In the counter, it is further stated that when there was an attempt to serve the order of suspension, dated 20.07.2009, the petitioner has refused to receive the same and approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The averments made in the counter affidavit are not disputed by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the authorisation granted to the petitioner is already suspended, pursuant to the inspection made by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Chandragiri, the plea of the petitioner that the authorities are taking steps for entrusting the commodities to the 4th respondent for distribution of scheduled commodities without suspending or cancelling his authorisation, is not correct. As much as the order, dated 20.07.2009, passed by the 1st respondent, suspending the authorisation of the petitioner, is not the subject matter of the writ petition, I do not find any illegality in the action taken by respondents 1 to 3 in taking steps for entrusting the stocks to 4th respondent- temporary dealer, during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition for grant of relief as prayed for. As it is contended by the petitioner that no attempt was made by the respondents to serve a copy of the order of suspension, dated 20.07.2009, passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati in proceedings No.K/397/2009, I direct the 1st respondent to send another copy of the said order to the petitioner, by registered post with acknowledgement due. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such suspension order, it is open for him to question the same. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th June 2010 ajr