THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30444 of 2011 Date: 17.11.2011 Between: V. Satish Kumar … Petitioner and The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30444 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Mohd. Ansaruddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has assailed the order of the respondent in Proc.No.C/3847/2011, dated 27.10.2011 suspending his Fair Price Shop authorisation pending enquiry, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.665 of Dhatu Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On 15.10.2011, the District Supply Officer, Ranga Reddy District along with his staff inspected the petitioner’s shop and found that he has committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. He submitted a report dated 17.10.2011 on noticing the following irregularities: 1. The F.P. Shop dealer has failed to maintain true and correct accounts and there by violated condition 4(i), (ii) of the authorisation issued under the APPDS (Control) Order, 2008. 2. As per the statements given by the eye witnesses of Champapet area the dealer has diverted 25.00 qtls. of PDS Rice from his F.P. Shop in TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No.AP 29T 6510 on 12.10.2011. 3. The F.P. Shop found to be running by a person other than the authorised dealer and there by violated condition 11 of the authorisation issued under the APPDS (Control) Order, 2008 and paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Annexure-I to the said order. 4. Taking cognizance of the said report, the respondent in exercise of the powers under Clause 5 (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for brevity “the Control Order”) initiated disciplinary action and suspended the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry through the impugned proceedings dated 27.10.2011. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said order contending that he is a physically challenged person and he was not present on 15.10.2011 when the shop was inspected and was taking treatment in hospital. He denied the allegation that the shop is being run by a benami. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent is competent to pass the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry is inherent in the respondent under Clause 5 (5) of the Control Order. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be considered as without jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the petitioner, disputing the allegations, can more appropriately be addressed in the enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the said contentions in this writ petition. 6. The aforesaid charges against the petitioner, which allege diversion of rice meant for public distribution system and the shop being run by a benami, are the grave allegations, which were taken note of by the respondent while suspending the authorisation of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order cannot even be construed as arbitrary. 7. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, muchless from lack of jurisdiction. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 17.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.30444 of 2011 17.11.2011 (Msr)