IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 17344 of 2009 Between: K.Rajaiah S/o.Narsaiah R/o.Choppadandi, Choppadandi (M), Karimnagar District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar District. 2 The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in issuing the impugned suspension order vide proc.No.K/1898/2009, dt. 20-7-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently this Hon'ble Court may pleased to set a side the same impugned order dt. 20.7.2009 issued by the 1st respondent and grant such other relief or relief. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No. 17344 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent herein in issuing the impugned suspension order dated 20.07.2009 in Proc.N.K/1898/2009, as illegal and consequently to set aside the said order. 2. The brief facts are that the questioning the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the authorization of the dealership of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. The main attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show-cause notice and the order of suspension are even dated i.e., 20.07.2009 and according to him when once a show-cause notice is issued the authorities ought not have kept the authorization under suspension. He should have waited for the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the variation is 0.50 Kgs of P.D.S rice and as the same is within the permissible limit, the authorities ought not to have kept the authorization under suspension. 4. I find force in the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for brevity ‘Control Order 2008’) deals with Marginal Variations and Minor Irregularities at Fair Shops and in respect of a single commodity, there may be a variation of up to 1.5%. When the impugned order is looked at, there is a variation of 0.50 Kgs P.D.S rice. If that is the only reason for suspending the authorization, this Court would have suspended the order impugned in this writ petition. But, here is a case where the authorization is kept under suspension pending enquiry. But it is to be known whether the disciplinary authority is having the power to keep any authorization under suspension pending enquiry. May be it is true that a show-cause notice was issued on the very same day, but it does not mean that the disciplinary authority shall not suspend the authorization. 5. The suspensions are of two types, one is by way of substantive punishment and other is pending enquiry. If after holding an enquiry and if the disciplinary authority feels that a penalty of suspension is to be imposed and the authorization is suspended, then he is duty bound to fix the period during which the authorization shall be under suspension, but here it is not so. In the instant case, the authorization of the petitioner is kept under suspension pending enquiry, which is permissible under clause 5 of the Control Order, 2008. 6. Further, from a perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition, it is clear that the cardholders made complaints to the Revenue Divisional Officer complaining that the dealer is not issuing the essential commodities properly and they have also shown previous month’s coupons. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is justified and it needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are hereby rejected. If the petitioner so chooses or advised, he may approach the appellate authority and file an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the appellate authority shall decide the said appeal within a period of six weeks. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 21st August, 2009 MD/KSH