IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 PRESENT: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3182 of 2010 BETWEEN: Kolliparla Srilakshmi … PETITIONER(S) AND The Joint Collector (C.S.Wing), Ongole, Prakasam District and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3182 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In view of the pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘Order 2008’), this writ petition is being heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders for shop nos.7 and 8 of Darsi Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. On certain complaints, an inquiry was conducted and the second respondent passed orders vide RCF No.522 of 2009 dated 04.02.2010 cancelling the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer and also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,75,143-75 ps on her in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 17(c) of Order 2008. Challenging the order of cancellation of her authorization and imposition of penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal, on 08.02.2010, as provided under Clause 20 of Order 2008, along with an application seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order of the second respondent dated 04.02.2010. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has not passed any orders either in the appeal or in the stay application filed by him. The impugned order is mainly questioned on the ground that though certain reports were referred to in the reference, they were not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner also questioned the impugned order on the ground that she is not responsible for the shortages and the explanation submitted by her was not considered in a proper perspective. It is further alleged that though there is no material that the imposition of three times penalty by the authorities on the petitioner is illegal. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-authorities submits that as the petitioner indulged in black marketing practices, there was a variation in the stocks and as such the variation of stocks is only on account of his diversion of stocks to the black market. It is submitted that the respondent- authorities are having power to impose penalty under Section 17(c) of Order 2008, apart from cancellation of the authorization under Clause 5(4) thereof. It is also submitted that certain alternative arrangements were already made in view of the order passed by the competent authority cancelling the authorization given to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the alternative arrangement is made only with regard to supply of Kerosene but not other stocks. In view of the pendency of the appeal before the Joint Collector - first respondent, at this stage, it is not desirable to go into the various allegations levelled by the petitioner. However, since it is stated that there is no direct allegation made against the petitioner as to her indulging in black marketing practices and since it is stated that as there is distribution of stocks in the absence of proper coupons an inference of diversion of stocks was drawn, and since these are the grounds to be examined by the appellate authority before whom the appeal is pending and since the remedy of appeal is a statutory right provided in the Order 2008 itself and since it is stated that though, in the impugned order, certain reports were referred to, but they were not furnished to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the very appeal preferred by the petitioner, on 08.02.2010, against the impugned order dated 04.02.1010 passed in R.C.F.No.523 of 2009 by the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that if no alternative arrangements are made as on today with regard to distribution of any of the scheduled commodities, to such extent the petitioner shall be allowed to continue to distribute the same till the appeal is disposed of by the appellate authority. It is also made clear that if any alternative arrangements are made with regard to distribution of any of the essential commodities, to such extent the authorities need not restore the petitioner. So far as the penalty imposed against the petitioner is concerned, the same remains suspended till disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th February 2010 CVRK Note: Office to issue copy in two days. B/o CVRK