HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13356 of 2007 Date : 29.09.2011 Between : A. Pullaiah. …..Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Nellore & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13356 of 2007 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the order, dated …..05.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar in Proceedings Rc.E.216/2007, and the action of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector in not passing orders either in the appeal or the stay petition filed by the petitioner on 02.06.2007, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Venkatarao Palli village of Atmakur Mandal in Nellore District. The premises of his shop were inspected on 28th of May 2007, and on the ground that there were some variations in stocks when book balances were compared with the actual ground balances, the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar has passed order, dated .…05.2007 in Proceedings Rc.E.216/2007, suspending the authorization of petitioner. This Court, by order, dated 26.07.2007, suspended the impugned order. In this case, it is to be noticed that when the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal, the appellate authority has directed the Tahsildar to conduct inquiry and take disciplinary action as per the provisions of the Control Order. Granting of authorization to run fair price shop and taking disciplinary actions like suspension or cancellation of authorization, etc., are presently governed by the provisions under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. As per the said order, there is no power conferred on the Tahsildar to take any action of either cancelling or revocation of authorization. Even during the relevant point of time when the impugned order is passed, the power conferred on the Tahsildar is only to suspend the authorization for a period of 90 days. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that without conducting any inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed as if the allegation levelled against the petitioner is proved in the inquiry. As much as this Court granted interim suspension of impugned order on 26.07.2007 and the said order continued all along, and as the impugned order is passed without giving any opportunity by recording a finding solely basing on the report sent by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, which is not even prepared by giving opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the respondents ought not to have passed the impugned order, suspending the petitioner’s authorization. As the said order is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Control Order which was in force during the relevant point of time, the same is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated …05.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings Rc.E.216/2007, is set aside. However, it is made clear that if there are any allegations against the petitioner, this will not preclude the competent authority from taking action as per the Control Order, 2008, by following the due procedure contemplated therein. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th September 2011 ajr