IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27750 of 2010 Between: R. Satyanarayana ..... Petitioner AND The Collector (CS), Karimnagar District, Karimnagar & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27750 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 02.06.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry into the allegations made against him. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Dharmapuri Village and Mandal. On report dated 11.01.2008, submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, Karimnagar, stating that the petitioner was selling the essential commodities at higher prices apart from running the fair price shop in a place different from the one, which was mentioned in the authorization, his authorization was suspended by respondent No.2 vide his order dated 28.01.2008. Simultaneously, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 06.02.2008. Upon receiving the explanation, respondent No.2 has held an enquiry and decided to forfeit the trade deposit of the petitioner and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards such forfeiture. Subject to those conditions, respondent No.2 has temporarily restored the petitioner’s authorization. Accordingly, the petitioner was continued as fair price shop dealer. However, by the impugned order, respondent No.2 has again suspended the petitioner’s authorization on the same charges, purporting to follow the circular memo dated 03.05.2010 of respondent No.1. After taking notice for the respondents, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has reported instructions. According to him, respondent No.1 has issued the abovementioned circular memo stating that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), authorizations of the fair price shop dealers shall be kept under suspension and that therefore in view of the said memo, the petitioner’s authorization has been suspended once again. In my opinion, the whole procedure followed by respondent No.2 does not appear to be proper. In the first place, he should have passed a final order after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and the reports submitted by the subordinate officers. Instead of completing the enquiry and passing a final order, respondent No.2 has followed a strange procedure of restoring to suspension of the petitioner’s authorization temporarily subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6A. In my opinion, the proceedings under Section 6A are independent of the enquiry initiated for cancellation of the fair price shop authorization. While the enquiry under Section 6A was concerned with violation of the control orders under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of confiscation of the goods, the scope of enquiry pertaining to cancellation of authorization revolves around whether the fair price shop dealer has committed any irregularity or misconduct warranting cancellation/suspension of authorization as substantive punishment. Therefore, there can be no nexus between these two proceedings. Having restored the petitioner’s authorization and kept the enquiry pending, respondent No.2 ought not to have guided himself by the circular memo dated 03.05.2010 because under clause 5(5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short, “the 2008 Order”), respondent No.2 is vested with the power to pass appropriate orders without being guided or dictated by his superior officers such as the District Collector. Even if his superior officer has issued a circular memo, such a memo cannot override the statutory provisions contained in the 2008 Order. Having initiated the enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has no option other than completing the same and passing a final order with reasonable expedition. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned order, keeping the petitioner under suspension, is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order on the show cause notice dated 28.01.2008 issued by him without waiting for disposal of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.35409 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.11.2010 ES