HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17649 of 2010 Dated: 28-07-2010 Between: Jogi Rambabu. … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17649 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer for shop No.19-A of Pasarlapudi village of Mamidikuduru Mandal in East Godavari District. He was also kept incharge for shop No.20. On 25.06.2010, an inspection was made in the premises of shop No.20, and on the allegation that there are certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, the impugned orders are passed, making incharge arrangements for both the shops i.e. shop Nos.19-A and 20. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that no irregularities are noticed in his regular shop No.19- A, and in that view of the matter, there is no reason for making incharge arrangements for shop No.19-A also. When the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has produced written instructions, in which, it is stated that the authorisation of petitioner is also suspended in respect of Shop No.20, by proceedings, dated 04.07.2010, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. As much as the incharge arrangements are made only pursuant to suspension of the authorisation of petitioner for Shop No.19-A also, while it is open for the petitioner to take steps by availing the remedy under Control Order with regard to his suspension, but so long as the authorisation of petitioner is suspended, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, by which, incharge arrangements are made with respondents 3 and 4 for shop Nos.19-A and 20 respectively, of Pasarlapudi village, for distribution of scheduled commodities. In that view of the matter, keeping it open for the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under law against the suspension of his authorisation, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th July 2010 ajr