THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26618 of 2009 DATE:05.12.2009 Between: Pathakota Hymavathi ... Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26618 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of Marella Village, Pedacherlapalli Mandal, Prakasam District. On the basis of a report dated 20.11.2009 of the Additional Revenue Inspector, Pedacherlapalli Mandal, stating that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.C/201/2009 dated 20.11.2009 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner for a period of three months. As against the order of suspension, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent and filed an appeal on 25.11.2009. The 1st respondent disposed of the appeal, by an order dated 30.11.2009, directing the 2nd respondent to send the entire record to take up final disciplinary action against the petitioner, while confirming the order passed by him. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the 2nd respondent has not gone into the fact as to whether the petitioner is having a valid authorisation or not and simply suspended her authorisation. He further contended that even the 1st respondent, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, disposed of the appeal filed by him, while confirming the order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent. 4. As per the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer is the disciplinary authority, and after holding an enquiry, if he satisfies that a dealer has committed irregularities in distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders, he may cancel the authorisation of the dealer. Here in this case, from a perusal of the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, it is clear that the 1st respondent simply confirmed the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent directing him to send the entire record to take up final disciplinary action against the petitioner. From the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any opportunity. If the 1st respondent passed an order cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner basing on the report of the 2nd respondent, it can be understood that the petitioner is not heard. As stated supra, as the order of the 2nd respondent is only an order of suspension as confirmed by the 1st respondent, this Court rejects the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. However, as the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the 1st respondent, he is hereby directed to issue a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation, hold an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any reason, he does not pass orders, the authorisation of the petitioner shall be restored and the essential commodities shall be supplied to her fair price shop enabling her to distribute the same to the cardholders, during pendency of the enquiry. 6. Accodingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 5th December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26618 of 2009 (Disposed of) 5th December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS