IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13347 of 2009 Between: Chintakayala Syamala, W/o. Sri Patrudu @ Babji, R/o. Allipudi, Kotananduru Mandal, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Revenue Divisional Oficer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, 2 The Tahsildar, Kotananduru, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 17.07.2008 whereby the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended pending finalisation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ex facie, the impugned order is unsustainable, because the fair price shop authorization cannot be suspended until finalisation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. He relied upon an interim order, wherein this Court expressed prima facie view that such an order cannot be sustained in law. There cannot be any doubt that the proceedings for taking disciplinary action against the fair price shop dealer are distinct from the proceedings to be initiated under Section 6-A of the Act. While in the former case, penalty of suspension or cancellation of the authorization depending upon the exigencies of situation and gravity of irregularities will ensue in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Order’), in the latter case, confiscation of food grains will be the consequence in the event of there being proof of commission of irregularities in terms of Section 6-A of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, mentioned in the impugned order that from the irregularities referred to therein, there exists prima facie evidence to proceed against the petitioner. He also issued show cause notice, dated 19.07.2008 inviting objections from the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against her under the 2008 order. The petitioner claimed that she filed an explanation to the said show cause notice. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram ought to have proceeded with the enquiry to pass appropriate order in exercise of the powers conferred upon him instead of subjecting the order of suspension to the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. To this extent, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be sustained, while I do not find any illegality in his suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram to complete the proceedings in pursuance of show cause notice, dated 19.07.2008 after holding proper enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17349 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni