HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21735 of 2010 Date : 31.08.2010 Between : K. Khajamohiddin. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21735 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer for Shop No.2 of Pamidi village and Mandal of Anantapur District. His appointment is governed by the provisions under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. On certain allegations, namely, that he has entrusted the distribution of essential commodities to another person by name B.K.Anwar, and that he is also running the shop in an unauthorized premises, and not maintaining the records properly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the authorization granted to him was suspended by an order, dated 28.06.2010, passed by the Tahsildar, Pamidi Mandal, in R.C.No.134/2010. Consequent to the suspension of petitioner’s authorization, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority, has issued show cause notice, dated 01.07.2010, in Rc.No.D1-CS/1830/2010, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. It is stated that the petitioner has also filed his explanation to the said show cause notice, on 15.07.2010. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that during the pendency of proceedings, respondents 1 to 3 have appointed respondent No.4 as temporary dealer, without issuing any notification. It is further submitted that the allegations made against him are false, and that the suspension order is passed without any basis. The order of suspension is passed on 28.06.2010 in Proceedings No.RC.No.134/2010, by Tahsildar, Pamidi. On the very same set of allegations, which were mentioned in the order of suspension, the 2nd respondent has already initiated proceedings for cancellation of authorization, by issuing a show cause notice, dated 01.07.2010, and it is also stated that the petitioner has already filed his explanation to the same. Although it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that no notification is issued for appointing respondent No.4 as a temporary dealer, but such contention cannot be accepted, because, for the purpose of making temporary arrangement, no notification need be issued. The said arrangement is only as a stop-gap arrangement till the completion of inquiry initiated against the petitioner. With regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as the inquiry is pending before the competent authority, it is not a case for interference with the order of suspension. But, as much as the petitioner has already filed his explanation to the show cause notice, dated 01.07.2010, issued in Rc.No.D1- CS/1830/2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional officer, to complete the inquiry and pass appropriate final orders pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 01.07.2010, within a period of six weeks from today. It is further directed that pending passing of final orders, no permanent appointment shall be made and the temporary arrangement made with respondent No.4 shall be subject to the outcome of final orders to be passed in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 01.07.2010, issued in RC.No. D1-CS/1830/2010. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st August 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr