HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.31666 of 2011 Date: 01-12-2011 Between Smt. S.Nagamani … Petitioner and The District Collector, Kurnool and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.31666 of 2011 Order: The petitioner is Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.12 of Sambavaram village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool district. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Allagadda, inspected the shop on 12-5-2011 and found that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. The inspection revealed that there is variation of 0.98 quintals in the rice meant for Public Distribution System and that the petitioner had made false entries in the acquittance of essential commodities besides failing to display the list of cardholders and card particulars at the shop. On a report submitted in that regard, the Tahsildar, Gospadu Mandal, the 3 rd respondent herein, suspended the authorization by orders dated 18-5-2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nandyal, the 2nd respondent herein, who by his orders dated 02-11- 2011 conﬁrmed the orders of suspension and dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not produce evidence in support of her contention that she did not commit the alleged irregularities. 2. The 2nd respondent issued Show Cause Notice in Rc.A.1301/2011, dated 02-11-2011, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the authorization should not be cancelled, on the following charges: “Charge-1: That the F.P. Shop dealer has closed the F.P. Shop at the prescribed timings. Charge-2: That the F.P. Shop dealer son made false entries in the acquittance of Ecs 1.23 qtls which not accounted for. Charge-3: That there is 0.98 qtls of PDS rice variation found at the time of inspections between book balance and ground balance. Charge-4: That the F.P. Shop dealer has contravened under clause 17(a), (b), (c), 22(v) & 22(vi) under APSPDS Control Order 2008 read with GO Ms.No.21 CAF & CS (CS-1) Department, dated 19.5.2008.” 3. It is at this stage, the petitioner has ﬁled this writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice and the orders dated 02-11-2011 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Show Cause Notice on 02-11-2011 and dismissing the appeal on the same date is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the 3rd respondent, who suspended the authorization, had no authority under law and therefore, the order of the 2nd respondent in conﬁrming the said order is unsustainable. It is also contended that though the petitioner was called upon to submit explanation and appeared on 11-11-2011 for hearing, the 2nd respondent has no justiﬁcation in dismissing the appeal simultaneously on the same day. According to the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent could not have simultaneously exercised the power in dismissing the appeal and also issuing the Show Cause Notice. 6. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contentions. 7. The second proviso to Clause 5(7) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’), confers powers on the Tahsildar to exercise the power of suspending the authorization and to tag on the cards to the nearest Fair Price Shop pending ﬁnal action by the appointing authority, for a period of 90 days and further action of continuing the suspension beyond 90 days or cancellation shall be taken by the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority viz. the Revenue Divisional Officer. 8. Thus, in the instant case, the Tahsildar has exercised the said power and suspended the authorization. In the light of the said provision, which has conferred power on the Tahsildar, the contention that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction, is not tenable. 9. Indisputably, the 2 nd respondent is the appointing authority as also the disciplinary authority. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Clause 5(7) of the Control Order, the 2 nd respondent has initiated proceedings by issuing the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the said action issuing the Show Cause Notice cannot also be said to be without jurisdiction. By the orders of the Tahsildar, the authorization was temporarily suspended pending enquiry, which should necessarily be followed by disciplinary action at the hands of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 02-11-2011 of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dismissing the appeal is not tenable. The contentions raised in the writ petition that the action dismissing the appeal and issuing the Show Cause Notice simultaneously is misconceived. 10. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice, the 2nd respondent has passed ﬁnal orders on 18-11-2011 cancelling the authorization. A copy of the proceedings is placed before the Court. Thus, this Court would have disposed of the writ petition taking into consideration the subsequent event, however, as the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted for disposal of the writ petition on its own merits, this Court was constrained to consider as above. 11. The writ petition, as presented above, is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. 12. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39294 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 01st December, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.31666 of 2011 01st December, 2011. (Ak)