THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP NO.26687 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Smt. C. Savitramma W/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, R/o.H.No.18-1-390, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati Chittoor District. PETITIONER And 1. The District Collector-Chittoor, Chittoor and another. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Vidyasagar Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies. The Court made the following order: ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed to declare the proceedings Roc.K/2167/2008 of 2nd respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, suspending the authorization of fair price shop No.34 of Tirupati Town Chittoor District of which the petitioner is the licence holder, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer of Tirupati Town, Chittoor District. On 23.10.2008, the Assistant Supply Officer (CS), Tirupati, along with Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Tirupathi Rural, inspected the shop of the petitioner. During the inspection it was noticed that 169 AAY Cards were attached to the Fair Price Shop No.34 out of which only 3 AAY Card holders have taken rice from the shop for the month of October 2008. Whereas for the month of August, 2008 the dealer has shown NIL as on 14.08.2008 but as per the stock register she has made entries to the effect that she has distributed entire rice during the month of August 2008. Likewise, for the month of September 2008 the petitioner has shown 0.35 kgs of AAY rice as closing balance but as per stock register she has made entries to the effect that she has distributed the entire rice during the month of September 2008. It appears that the said Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsilder conducted confidential enquiry and asserted that the petitioner was not residing at Tirupathi and not doing the Fair Price Shop Business and that she is residing at Piler. Based on the report of the said Officer, 2nd respondent herein suspended the authorization of the petitioner under the order impugned in the writ petition. 3. The matter has come today at the interlocutory stage. On the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the authorization has been suspended as a matter of substantive punishment but not as suspension pending enquiry. The 2nd respondent does not appear to have issued any notice to the petitioner and conducted any independent enquiry before passing the impugned order. 5. From the counter, it appears that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner vide notice Roc.K/2167/08, dated 02.12.2008 calling upon explanation, pending the enquiry and the said notice was served on the petitioner on 12.01.2009. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order should be construed as an order suspending the licence pending enquiry. Since the show cause notice has already been issued, the petitioner is permitted to file an explanation to the said show cause notice within a period of four weeks from today. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry as early as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. This Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 5.12.2008 in WPMP No.34944 of 2008 ordered suspension of the impugned order. Having regard to the same, the said order shall continue till the disposal of the enquiry as directed above. 8. The Writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29th October, 2010 Js.