IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7305 of 2008 Between: Kum.L.Mudda Lakshmi D/o.M.Pulla Reddy Gondireddypalli village Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3 The Tahsildar, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.PEDDANNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 29-03-2008 passed by respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Gondireddipalli Village, Rapthadu Mandal, Ananthapur District. On the purported inspection of the petitioner’s shop, respondent No.3 found that the petitioner indulged in certain irregularities in running her fair price shop. He, therefore, passed the impugned order, wherein he mentioned as under: ‘In view of the above, I felt that deterrent punishment is necessary to keep the dealer away from the Public Distribution System to safe guard the interest of poor cardholders and also for smooth functioning of the Public Distribution System. Hence, I hereby suspended the F.P.Shop Authorisation held by Kum.L.Mudda Lakshmi, D/o.Sri M.Pulla relddy, F.P.Shop Dealer, Gondireddipalli Village, Rapthadu Mandal as per the rules in force.’ The learned Counsel for the petitioner attacked the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the same is passed far in excess of the jurisdiction of respondent No.3. He relied on G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06-10-2007, which reads as under: ‘Provided further that the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant Supply Officer/Tahsildar concerned shall also exercise the power of suspending the authorization of the erring F.P.Shop dealer and tagging on the cards to the nearest F.P.Shop pending final action by the appointing authority, for a period of (90) days only.’ From the above extracted provision, it is clear that the power of suspension of authorization, pending final action, is conferred on respondent No.3 to the limited extent viz., to suspend a fair price shop dealer for a period not exceeding 90 days. A perusal of the impugned suspension order shows that respondent No.3 not only framed charges against the petitioner, but he also arrived at a final conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges so framed, and that the deterrent punishment is necessary to keep her away from the Public Distribution System. The tone and tenor, in which the impugned order has been passed, show that respondent No.3 assumed the role of the disciplinary authority and adjudicated the issue relating to the culpability of the petitioner and handed out a substantive punishment, which is wholly beyond his power and jurisdiction. As already noted above, respondent No.3 is conferred with a limited power of suspending the authorization, pending enquiry and passing of final orders by the disciplinary authority, that too for a period of ninety days. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, and it is, therefore, quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur