IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.17510 of 2008 Between: Smt. L.Jaya W/o.Srihari, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No.3, Marpadga Village, Kondapak Mandal, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.B/1677/2008 dated 19.7.2008 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, consequently declare the order of rejection of the stay by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.C.S.A./7A/2008 dated 4.8.2008 as unjust arbitrary, and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue her as a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.3 of Marpadga village, Kondapak Mandal, Medak District by supplying the commodities. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.GOVIND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.17510 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents. 2. By the impugned order, dated 19.07.2008, of the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, the petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop No.3, Marpadga Village, Kondapak Mandal of Medak District, is suspended pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner has indulged in irregularities as specified in the order of suspension. The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst to the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Medak. The 1st respondent rejected grant of interim relief in the appeal, by the order dated 04.08.2008. Challenging the order of suspension dated 19.07.2008, the writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner alleges that the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry is passed without notice or opportunity and without even a query to her as to whether she has, in fact, indulged in the irregularities alleged. 4. It is axiomatic that an order of suspension of authorization pending enquiry is a preemptive executive action, which does not require issuance of a show cause notice, as it only visits the authorization with a temporary cessation of the business while keeping the authorization intact, though in suspended animation. 5. The contentions on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the merits of the order of suspension on the ground that she did not indulge in the irregularities is also not a matter that ought appropriately to be considered in this writ petition, as the facts as to whether the petitioner indulged in the irregularities will have to be determined on the substantive enquiry that will follow. 6. On the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to expeditiously dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of suspension dated 19.07.2008, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2nd respondent shall also initiate and conclude the enquiry into the allegations, which found the basis of the order of suspension, expeditiously and within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM 12th August, 2008 IBL