THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26674 of 2010 DT.27.10.2010 Between: Smt.C.Ratnamma … Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Varikuntapadu (M), Nellore District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.V.Narasimham Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Brahmanapalli Village, V.K.Padu Mandal, Nellore District, by setting aside order, dated 24.09.2010, of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri M.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. By order, dated 24.09.2010, respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization on the following charges: “1. On verification of stocks, the variations were found in the commodities as detailed below: (Qty.in Kgs) Commodity Receipts Sales Closing balance to be available Ground balance available Variation found Rice 2800 2722 78 15 (-) 63 Wheat 800 772 28 55 (+) 27 K.Oil 364 0 364 364 0 Sugar 100 0 100 0 (-)100 The Fair Price Shop Dealer has failed to distribue 63 kgs of rice, 100 kgs of sugar to the card holders and diverted the stock to black market for her pecuniary benefits and thus violated conditions laid down u/s 17(a) & (b) of AP PDS (Control) Order, 2008. 2. The Fair Price Shop Dealer has failed to distribute the K.Oil to the card holders even after closure of the month. 3. The Fair Price Shop Dealer has failed to distribute the wheat properly to the card holders by adopting improper measurements, as there was excess stock of 27 kgs found during the course of inspection.” Simultaneously, respondent No.1 has given a show-cause notice as to why the petitioner’s authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3 questioning the order of suspension. The said respondent while rejecting the application for stay and disposing of the appeal, directed respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry and pass final order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the appellate authority is bound to record the reasons for rejecting stay and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A careful perusal of the said provision reveals that the same has no application to the appeals filed against the orders of either suspension or cancellation. The said provision deals with the power of the appointing authority to add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization, for reasons to be recorded in writing. The learned counsel submitted that since the order of suspension is stated to be not in the nature of interim measure, respondent No.2 was bound to give a notice before resorting to the act of suspension. No doubt, respondent No.2 in his order, dated 22.09.2010, has not indicated that the suspension order is passed pending enquiry. But, the very fact that on the same day, respondent No.2 has issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation itself shows that the suspension order was intended to be in the nature of interim measure, pending enquiry into the allegations made against her. The law is well settled that the power to suspend, pending enquiry, is concomitant to the power of the disciplinary authority to cancel the authorization. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of suspension is in violation of principles of natural justice. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has not given any reasons for dismissing the appeal, though there is some substance in the submission of the learned counsel, on a perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner, prima facie suspension was made on finding that there are variations in stocks between the stock register and ground balance with regard to rice, wheat and sugar. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of suspension passed by respondent No.2 was without any basis. For the mere reason that the appellate authority failed to record reasons, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner as fair price shop dealer by setting aside the order of suspension passed by respondent No.2, pending enquiry, more so when respondent No.3 has directed respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry within one month. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34044 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 27.10.2010. VGB