IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16642 of 2009 Between: 1 Kum.Patchigolla Lalitha D/o.Venkata Ramana R/o.Papayasanthapalem, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Sri. K.R.V.V.Sanyasi Setty S/o.Venkata Rao R/o.Papayapalem, Anakapalle Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus a) Declaring the orders of the 1st respondent passed in A.C.No.8/2009 C.S.R.7 dt. 25.7.2009 and A.C.No.7/2009 C.S.R. 7 dt. 28.7.2009 as bad, illegal, arbitrary without application of mind and against the principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same. b) And further declare the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, in C.S.C.No.2285/09/C and C.S.C.No.2286/09/C dt: 23.06.2009 as bad, illegal arbitrary and without application of mind and set aside the same, c) And consequentially permit the petitioners to run their respective fair price shops Nos. 78 and 79 situated at Papayasantapalem and Papayapalem, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.16642 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 The petitioners’ authorization was kept under suspension by order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground of certain irregularities. As against the said order, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Joint Collector. But however, the Joint Collector rejected the same with a further direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry at the earliest. As against the said orders passed by the Joint Collector, the petitioners approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Srinivas is that simply because proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act have been initiated, the petitioners’ authorizations are kept under suspension and according to him until and unless proceedings under the provisions of the relevant Control Order are initiated, the authorizations of the petitioners cannot be suspended on the mere ground that proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act have been initiated. It is his further contention that the charges levelled against the petitioners are very trivial and for those charges there is no need to suspend their authorization as fair price shop dealers. 3 So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorization of the petitioners is kept under suspension solely on the basis of the proceedings initiated under Section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act is concerned, the same cannot be countenanced for the reason that a perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 23.06.2009 clearly reveals that proceedings under Section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act have been initiated, and, further proceedings under t he A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Control Order, 2008 have also been initiated and the authorization of the petitioners is suspended invoking the provisions of Clause 5 (5) of the said Control Order. Hence the said contention is negatived. 4 In so far as the second contention that the charges levelled against the petitioners are very trivial is concerned, of course, this court, having gone through the allegations, is of the view that the said charges, prima facie, appear to be trivial. But this court cannot give any finding as to whether the said charges are trivial or serious in nature, inasmuch as, this court is exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the competent authority to apply its mind and come to the conclusion whether the charges are trivial or serious in nature. Hence, this court is not inclined to go into that aspect. 5 However, as the authorization of the petitioner are kept under suspension since 23.06.2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer is hereby directed to complete the said enquiry under the relevant Control Order within a period of two weeks from today. In the event of his failure in not complying with this order and complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks, the authorization of the petitioners shall be restored and they shall be permitted to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. 6 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------ 12.08.2009 kvsn