THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16905 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer for shop No.5 of Ternekal Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District. On the ground that she has committed certain irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. For the charges framed against her in the show cause notice, dated 11.03.2010, she submitted explanation on 19.03.2010. The second respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, although extracted the charges and explanation in a tabular form, by merely stating that the irregularities are grave in nature, cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner by his order, dated 19.03.2010. It is stated that against such order, the petitioner filed appeal along with an application for interim order, on 16.04.2010 before the first respondent - Joint Collector, Kurnool. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the primary authority without recording any reason, has cancelled the fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner and that in spite of appeal and stay petition were submitted by her as early as on 16.04.2010, no orders have been passed by the appellate authority. The disciplinary action against the authorized fair price shop dealer is governed by Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). The said provision empowers the appointing authority to amend, vary, suspend or rescind the authorization by recording reasons in writing. Prima facie, a perusal of the order, dated 19.03.2010 passed by the second respondent does not indicate any finding on the charges framed against the petitioner. The second respondent by merely referring to such charges and explanation filed by her and recording a reason to the effect that the irregularities are grave in nature, cancelled her fair price shop authorisation. Mere statement in the impugned order that the irregularities are grave in nature does not constitute basis within the meaning of Clause 5(5) of the Control Order. In any event, in view of pendency of appeal preferred by the petitioner on 16.04.2010 before the first respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the respondents are to directed to continue the supply of scheduled commodities to the petitioner for distribution of the same to the cardholders during pendency of appeal before the appellate authority. It is made clear that the order, dated 19.03.2010 cancelling the authorisation of the petitioner shall remain suspended till disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th JULY, 2010. Note: issue copy by Monday. kvni