IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12300 of 2009 Between: V.Rama Subbamma W/o.V.C.Venkata Reddy Thippaluru Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Tahsildar, Yerraguntla Mandal, Yerraguntla, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 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 show cause notice and consequential proceedings, dated 15.06.2009 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner is a dealer of fair price shop No.12 of Thippaluru Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District. On a representation submitted by one A.Krishna Reddy on behalf of Thippaluru Villagers, respondent No.2 sent a report to respondent No.1, in which, he referred to certain alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Based on the said report, respondent No.1 by separate proceedings, with the same number and date, issued show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within seven (7) days and also order of suspension by suspending the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the irregularities alleged cannot be sustained qua the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Order”). He further submitted that the Tahsildar inspects the records and only after finding that there were no irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders, he will recommend for renewal of the authorization and therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner pertaining to the distribution of essential commodities are contrary to the provisions of the 2008 Order. He also submitted that since the petitioner worked in favour of the candidature of the person belonging to the ruling party in the recent Assembly elections, the respondents are bent upon cancelling her authorization. As regards the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1, it is not proper for this Court to render findings on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner since, undisputedly, respondent No.1 is the competent authority to issue show cause notice and pass appropriate orders thereon. Whether the charges framed in the show cause notice can be sustained with reference to the provisions of the 2008 Order or not can be decided by respondent No.1 alone and it is premature for this Court to pronounce upon this aspect. With regard to the allegations of mala fides, I find no merit therein because except making some averments in the affidavit, no material is produced in support thereof. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to interdict the proposed action initiated by respondent No.1 on the vague pleas of mala fides. As regards the order of suspension, since the said order was passed pending enquiry and the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy of filing appeal, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition against the order of suspension. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the order of suspension within a period of two (2) weeks from today besides submitting explanation to the show cause notice to respondent No.1. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15893 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th JUNE, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni