IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27601 of 2009 Between: B.Krishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, SPS, Nellore and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.27601 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is an authorized fair price dealer of shop No.6 of Thatiparthi village of Podalakuru Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore Disrict, and on 05-05-2009, his shop was inspected by the Civil Supplies officials, Nellore, and they found certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, and on the basis of the report submitted by them, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, SPS Nellore, suspended the petitioner’s authorization by his proceedings, dated 14-05-2009. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority i.e. 1st respondent-Joint Collector, SPS Nellore, and filed an appeal along with an application seeking suspension of the order dated 14-05-2009. But, however, the 1st respondent refused to suspend the said order. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and after holding enquiry, the 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority passed an order dated 25-09-2009, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent ought not to have passed an order in view of the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent. Further, according to her, the allegations are so trivial, which do not warrant the extreme punishment of cancellation of the authorization. 4. I am unable to accept the said contention. May be it is true that the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent, but it does not mean that the 2nd respondent shall not pass any orders. If the proceedings of the 2nd respondent are suspended or stayed by the 1st respondent-appellate authority, it can be said that the order of the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. Here is a case where the petitioner while filing an appeal before the 1st respondent, also filed an application seeking suspension of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. But the 1st respondent rejected the same. Hence, it cannot be said that the said order is without jurisdiction. 5. Insofar as the other contention i.e. the irregularities committed by the petitioner are so trivial is concerned, the petitioner can as well bring all these things by filing a regular appeal before the 1st respondent as provided for under Clause 20 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2008. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, SPS Nellore District, and file an appeal against the order dated 25-09-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent canceling his authorization, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such filing of an appeal, the 1st respondent is directed to hear the petitioner and dispose of the same, within a period of five weeks from the date of filing of an appeal. If for any reason, no orders are passed in the appeal within the stipulated time, the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored enabling him to distribute the schedule commodities to the cardholders pending disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 18th December 2009 Note: Issue C.C. by three days. B/o. KVR