IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15105 of 2008 Between: P. Laxmaiah, S/o. Mysaiah, R/o. 5-1, Avurpally, Madgul Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, (Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies), Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Tahsildar, Madgul Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a direction, writ, order or orders particularly one in the nature of certiorari declaring the action of the respondents in issuance of the suspension order dated 11-6-2008 bearing No. B/515/2008 is without jurisdiction arbitrary and illegal and the same may be quashed or to pass any other order or orders appropriate in the case may be passed. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15105 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. By the impugned order dated 11.6.2008 of the 3rd respondent, petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop No. 1, Avuropally Village, Madgul Mandal, Mahabubnagar District was suspended on allegations of commission of the specified irregularities which were revealed during an inspection and enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Madgul and the inspection having been done on the basis of a news report. Petitioner claims to have had an authorization upto 31.3.2008. He applied for renewal of the licence, which has not yet been considered. He claims to be an authorizee continuously for the past twenty two (22) years. In respect of the irregularities noticed in the inspection, a show cause notice was issued on 9.5.2008, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.5.2008 and pending a detailed enquiry, by the impugned order dated 11.6.2008, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner assails the said order on the ground that the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority to pass the order of suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner contends that since under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (for short ‘the Control Order, 1973”), the appointing authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who alone has the jurisdiction to suspend. The 3rd respondent, not being the Revenue Divisional Officer is not competent to visit the petitioner with an order of suspension pending enquiry. Petitioner further contends that the 3rd respondent had exercised the power of suspension qua an amendment to the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2001 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2001”). But the petitioner’s authorization having been granted under the Control Order, 1973, the Control Order 2001 is inapplicable and the conferral of power thereunder cannot be lawfully invoked to visit the petitioner with an order of suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner has appended to the writ petition, an earlier authorization dated 28.4.2005, whereunder his authorization was for a period of two years upto 31.3.2006 and on which a further renewal is endorsed upto 31.3.2008 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, the endorsement by an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in April, 2008. The superscription of this authorization being relevant to the contentions urged by the petitioner, requires to be extracted and reads as under: “Authorisation issued to the Authorised Fair Price Shop or Stockist under Clause (5) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 2001” It is the synoptic submission by the counsel for the respective parties that there is no Control Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which bears the long title extracted above. While there was earlier the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation & Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, (which the petitioner claims continues to be in operation and the learned Govt. Pleader claims not), there is a subsequent Control Order, namely, A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and there is now the A.P. Sate Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Control Order, 1973 is still extant and that the authorization granted to the petitioner was on 28.4.2005, which was renewed upto 31.3.2008 is issued by a typographical error, which reads as the Control Order, 2001, whereas it should truly and properly read the Control Order, 1973. The above contention is stated to be rejected. The Control Order, 1973 has been specifically superceded by the Control Order, 2001. The notification of the Control Order, 2001 reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) and in terms of the order of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution GSR No. 630 (E), dated 31.08.2001, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in supercession of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 issued in G.O. Ms. No.1088, F&A (CS.IV) Department, dated 28th September, 1973, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following order namely,:- ANDHRA PRADESH STATE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (CONTROL) ORDER, 2001” It is therefore clear beyond the pale of contention that the Control Order, 1973 has been statutorily extinguished by the notification which has been brought into operation as the Control Order, 2001 and from the date of coming into operation of the Control Order, 2001, it is the Control Order, 2001, which operates and not the Control Order, 1973. It is therefore, clear that the typographical error in the drafting of the authorization in favour of the petitioner is not in the year, but in the long title itself. At any rate, Typists make not the Law. The principle is too well settled that where a wrong provision of law is quoted and authority exists otherwise, an order is liable to be justified as one under the correct provision of law. By a notification dated 23.5.2008, the Control Order, 2008 has been issued and operationalized and this Order stipulates that it supercedes the Control Order 2001. To place the matter beyond the pale of controversy, clause 25 of the Control Order, 2008 specifically repeals the Control Order, 2001. The above is the flow of the statutory orders, namely, the Control Order, 1973 having been repealed and superceded by the Control Order, 2001 and the Control Order, 2008 superceding and repealing the Control Order, 2001. Therefore, the authorization issued to the petitioner for the past 22 years as he claims is deemed to have been issued by such extant Control Order as are/were extant at the time of each renewal. The Control Order, 2008, which is the current statutory regime, operating and binding on the parties, in the second proviso to Clause 5 thereof, clearly and unequivocally empowers the Tahsildar to “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 (90) ninety days only”. As is clear from the statutory conferral of power qua the Control Order, 2008, the period for which the 3rd respondent may exercise the power of suspension is chronologically limited to a period of 90 days, but within that period, the 3rd respondent clearly has the power. The petitioner does not canvass the correctness of the 3rd respondent’s order on any other ground except on the point of jurisdiction. On the analysis above, the jurisdictional challenge is answered against the petitioner. The writ petition beseeches rejection and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, but in the circumstances without costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 15th July, 2008 Pnb