IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD Friday this the 15th day of November, 2010 Writ Petition No.28163 of 2008 Between P.Uma Maheswari … Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore district … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Writ Petition No.28163 of 2008 Order: The petitioner has aggrieved by the order dated 25-6-2008 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, vide which the authorization of the petitioner for running the fair price shop dealership has been suspended under Section 5(1) of the Essential Commodities Control Order, 2001. 2. The petitioner is an authorized dealer of fair price shop II, Ulavapalla, Dagadarthi Mandal. It is the case of the petitioner that although he was running the fair price shop dealership in very fair and honest manner, a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali on 25-6-2008 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his dealership should be not suspended for committing certain irregularities. The petitioner was directed to furnish his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 3. Before the petitioner could reply to the show cause notice, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, vide order dated 25-6-2008 suspended the authorization of the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali has issued the show cause notice as well as the order suspending the authorization to run the fair price shop dealership on the same day i.e., on 25-6-2008. The learned counsel submits that it is for the respondents to wait for the explanation of the petitioner before suspending his fair price shop dealership. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent, however, submits that as the petitioner had committed irregularities, the respondent was well within his powers to suspend the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the show cause notice as well as the order suspending the authorization to run the fair price shop dealership have been passed on one and the same date i.e., on 25-6-2008. By passing the order of suspension, the show cause notice has been rendered immediately. Once the authority respondent had asked the petitioner to furnish his reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, then it was incumbent upon them to wait for the reply of the petitioner and then only an order of suspension of running the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner had to be passed. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25-6-2008 passed by the respondent is wholly illegal and the same is quashed. The petitioner has already filed his reply to the show cause notice on 28-7-2008 and the respondent shall pass fresh orders on the show cause notice after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms. The decision may be taken by the respondent within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA 15th November, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Writ Petition No.28163 of 2008 15th November, 2010.