IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15280 of 2009 Between: Sri K.Pentannaidu, s/o. Late Sri Jagannadhamnaidu, (Parammapeta Panchayat) Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 3 The Tahasildar, Regidi amadalavalasa Mandal, 4 The Deputy Tahasildar, Civil Supplies, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 04.02.2009 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Kagitapalli Village, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. Basing on the inspection of his shop by the Assistant Supply Officer, the District Supply Officer, Srikakulam and the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Rajam and Palakonda on 02.02.2009, the petitioner’s authorisation was suspended “temporarily until furthers” by respondent No.3 by order, dated 04.02.2009. The petitioner questioned this order on the ground that the Tahsildar is vested with the power to suspend authorisation for a period not exceeding 90 days and that despite expiry of the said period, the petitioner’s authorisation has not been restored. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. Under the second proviso to Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’), the disciplinary authority, namely, Assistant Supply Officer/Tahsildar concerned is entitled to exercise the power of suspending the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer pending final action by the appointing authority, for a period of ninety (90) days only. It also envisages that further action of continuing the suspension beyond 90 days or cancellation of authorisation shall be taken by the “appointing authority” as well as the disciplinary authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector/District Supply Officer. In this case, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the impugned order of suspension passed by respondent No.3 has not been extended by respondent No.2, who is the appointing authority. If this plea is correct, the impugned order ceased to operate on the expiry of 90 days from the date of it’s passing, namely, 04.02.2009. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Unless order, dated 04.02.2009 passed by respondent No.3 stood extended by respondent No.2 by an order already passed in writing to that effect before expiry of 90 days from 04.02.2009, the said order of respondent No.3, which is impugned in this writ petition, stands set aside and the petitioner’s authorisation stands restored entitling the petitioner to continue as fair price shop dealer, until an order in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order is passed terminating the authorisation of the petitioner either temporarily or permanently. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JULY, 2009. kvni