IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12496 of 2009 Between: G.V.Meenakshi W/o.G.Anjaneyulu, R/o.Kalyanadurg, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Tahsildar, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 12-06-2009, by which the petitioner’s authorization of Fair Price Shop No.8 of Kalyandurg, Anantapur District was suspended. At the hearing, Sri S.D.Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained, because the same was passed only on the ground that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shaik Raheema v. Joint Collector, Nellore and another[1], in support of his contention. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the record. In his order, respondent No.2 stated that inspection of the fair price shop, in question, on 10-06-2009 revealed that as against 72.79 quintals of PDS rice and AAY rice, allotted for the month of June, 2009, there ought to be a balance of 5.17 quintals of rice, after considering the entries in the sales register and the coupons available at the shop, but only 70 Kgs., of rice was found as the ground balance and that therefore, there was a shortage of 5.17 quintals of rice. It is also further stated that as there was shortage of rice, respondent No.2, in his proceedings dated 10-06-2009, requested respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and therefore, the petitioner’s authorization was being suspended. In my considered view the judgment on which the learned counsel placed reliance has no application, because that was a case where the fair price shop authorization was suspended merely on the ground that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated and the authority which passed the order of suspension did not refer to the prima facie violations of the Control Order or the conditions of the authorization. As noted above, in this case, respondent No.2 found shortage of 5.17 quintals of rice and this clearly shows that he applied his mind before suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 also referred to the fact that he already made a request to respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. This reference by itself cannot be construed as the decision to suspend the authorization was based only on the factum of initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Against the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner has got a right of appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyandurg. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order of suspension, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal at her option. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.16165 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th June, 2009 pn/vrn HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12496 of 2009 30th June, 2009 [1] 2008 (1) ALD 768