IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13478 of 2007 Between: Vangara Rajamouli S/o Veeraswamy R/o 20-2-72/2, Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATESHWAR VARANASI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning proceedings dated 23.05.2007 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization for shop No.4509 of Godavarikhani was suspended on certain alleged irregularities. Heard Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the petitioner’s fair price authorization was suspended on finding that he was involved in diversion of kerosene oil meant for public distribution and thereby contravened Clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution Control Order, 2001, Condition Nos.11 and 13 of the authorization and Condition No.10 of the agreement. The main ground on which the petitioner questions the impugned proceedings is that the same was passed as a measure of punishment and that the said order was not preceded by any enquiry and an opportunity of hearing him. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is, inter alia, stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, being the appointing authority, he will suspend the authorization, while issuing show-cause notice if he prima facie finds that the fair price shop dealer committed irregularities and that the suspension is not a final decision, but the same is part of preliminary action pending detailed enquiry into the allegations. While undoubtedly the appointing authority has got power to suspend the authorization of a fair price shop dealer pending enquiry, wherever he exercises such a power, he is bound to expressly mention the fact that such suspension is made as an interim measure pending enquiry. In the instant case, respondent No.1 failed to state so. On the other hand, the impugned order suggests that the allegation of diversion of kerosene was proved and a conclusive finding is rendered thereon. Therefore, impugned order dated 23.05.2007 suffers from a serious legal error and the same is accordingly set aside. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that the enquiry is pending, they are given liberty to hold enquiry and pass final order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. _________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21st July, 2009 GHN