IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2791 of 2009 Between: G. Prasad S/o. G. Lakshmanna R/o. D.No.10-165, Pulasanuthala Village, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Anantapur Anantapur District. 2 The Tahsildar Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings vide in R.C.No.26/09(B) dated 03-02-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent suspending the authorization of F.P. Shop of Pulusanuthala of the petitioner, without issuing any notice, without giving any opportunity nor without personnel hearing of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings vide in R.C.No.26/09(B) dated 03-02-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2791 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 03.02.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, Narpala Mandal of Anantapur District. Under the impugned proceedings, the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Pulasalanuthala Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District, was suspended by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass any final order inflicting punishment on a fair price shop dealer suspending the authorization held by him. At the most, he has the power to suspend the authorization of a fair price shop dealer for a period of 90 days, pending enquiry. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar issued the impugned proceedings, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are ex-facie illegal and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 03.02.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to run the fair price shop in question as usual. However, this order does not preclude the respondent authorities from taking appropriate action as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th February, 2009. IBL