IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5761 of 2008 Between: V.Veeramma, W/o.Bayyapu Reddy, Chemullapalli Village, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa,Kadapa District. 2 The Tahsildar, Khajipet Mandal,Khajipet,Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in placing the petitioner’s authorisation under suspension pending enquiry, by his proceedings No.C/411/2008, dated 04-03- 2008, without application of mind and without conducting necessary enquiry as per clause 5(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, (for short ‘the Control Order’), as illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The Tahsildar, Kazipet, submitted a report to respondent No.1, wherein he found that the petitioner committed as many as four irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. Respondent No.1, having considered the said report, passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. It is also mentioned in the said proceedings that the petitioner will be given an opportunity by way of a show- cause notice before taking final action in the matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of respondent No.1 was passed without application of mind. He contended that the impugned order is based solely on the report of the Tahsildar, Kazipet, and respondent No.1 has not applied his mind independently. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 acted on the report of respondent No.2, who mentioned that the petitioner indulged in irregularities. Under the Control Order, the appointing authority has the power to amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization of a fair price shop dealer. Though a separate provision does not exist for suspending the authorization pending enquiry, such a power is concomitant of the main power of the appointing authority to pass the final order of cancellation or suspension. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order of suspension, pending enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, at this stage, the appointing authority is, ordinarily, guided by the report submitted by the subordinate authorities and there is no scope for its making an enquiry independent of the report submitted by its subordinates. It is only in the enquiry that the appointing authority would consider the entire material, before passing a final order. The fact that respondent No.1 took note of the various irregularities alleged against the petitioner by respondent No.2 itself shows that he applied his mind and was prima facie satisfied that this was a fit case for suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending further orders. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.1. At any rate, the petitioner has the remedy of appeal provided under clause 20(1) of the Control Order and there is no reason for him to bypass the said remedy, which, in my view, is efficacious. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if he so chooses. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the same without taking into consideration the observations made herein above, which are intended only for the disposal of this Writ Petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7487 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 18-03-2008 LUR