IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23051 of 2008 Between: Bojja Seshi Reddy, S/o. Late Pulla Reddy, of Shop No. 1 of Pulimaddi Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the antedated impugned suspension orders in Rc.A. 1769/2008, dt. 02- 9-2008 which is served on the petitioner on 13-10-2008 only to circumvent the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPMP No. 28653/08 in WP No. 22004/2008, dated 30-9-2008, event though petitioner has not violated any conditions, as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23051 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is the authorized dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1 of Pulimaddi Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. The 1st respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer - issued a show- cause notice dated 20.08.2008 alleging certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities and calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his authorization should not be suspended/cancelled. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation on 21.8.2008 itself denying all the allegations. Though no further order was passed, the petitioner was not allowed to distribute the commodities for the month of October, 2008. In the circumstances, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.22004 of 2008 and this Court by order dated 30.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.28653 of 2008 directed the respondents to release the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders provided the authorization of the petitioner was subsisting as on that date. However, the essential commodities were not released to the petitioner, but on the other hand the order of suspension of authorization dated 2.9.2008 was served on the petitioner on 13.10.2008. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order of suspension dated 2.9.2008 is arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned order which was ante-dated as 2.9.2008 only to circumvent the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22004 of 2008 is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while denying the allegation that the impugned order was ante-dated, submitted that the impugned order of suspension dated 2.9.2008 could not be served on the petitioner since he was not available in the village on 8.9.2008 and 28.9.2008 and ultimately, it was served only on 13.10.2008. Even assuming that the version of the respondents is correct, the impugned cannot stand the scrutiny of law for the following reasons : Firstly, having issued a show-cause notice and having received the explanation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent is bound to record reasons in support of his conclusion that the authorization is liable to be suspended. However, except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, the 1st respondent failed to assign any reasons. It is also relevant to note that the 1st respondent failed to specify the period of suspension in the impugned order. Admittedly, the impugned order is not an order of suspension pending enquiry, but the suspension is as a substantive punishment. Hence, it is necessary to specify the period of suspension. If no such period is speciﬁed, the penalty would amount to cancellation of authorization. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order was passed without application of mind to the relevant factors both of law and facts. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.9.2008 is hereby set aside leaving it open to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.10.2008 gbs Note:- Operative Portion by wire At party’s costs. (B/o) gbs