THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5046 of 2011 Date:01.03.2011 Between: Nagandla Satyanarayana ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I.Koti Reddy Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 18.02.2011, of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorisation for a period of 90 days, pending enquiry into the allegations against him. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Following inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop, certain quantities of essential commodities available in the said shop were seized suspecting that the petitioner indulged in irregularities in running the shop. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.2 suspended the petitioner’s authorisation on the allegation that he has forged the signatures and the thumb impressions of the cardholders by falsely showing that he has distributed 160 kgs of rice, 6 kgs of sugar and 12 litres of palmolene oil, and misappropriated the same, leading to registration of a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in the nature of cancellation of the petitioner’s authorisation, which is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has obviously exercised his power under Clause-5(7) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Order’) (respondent No.2 omitted to mention Clause-5 and referred to “Section 7” in the impugned order), by suspending the petitioner’s authorisation for a period of 90 days. The telugu expression used by respondent No.2 is evidently equivalent to suspension in view of the fact that the order of cancellation cannot be for a limited period of 90 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that under Clause-5(7) of the Order, respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to suspend the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer for a period not exceeding 90 days. In the light of this admitted position, the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned order is an order of cancellation is without any merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impeach the order on merits by stating that the allegations made therein are factually incorrect. I am afraid, this Court at this stage cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the order. The allegations being serious in nature, the truth or otherwise thereof requires to the considered in the enquiry that will be held by respondent No.1. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which is made pending enquiry and passing of a final order by respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6241 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st March, 2011 Note: Issue CC by Monday. (b/o) VGB