THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25867 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Dealer for Fair Price Shop No.79 of Akkarampalli, Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District. On 16.05.2008, the Integrated Squad of Tirupathi Division inspected the shop and verified the nature of distribution of rice at subsidized price of Rs.2/- per k.g. Alleged irregularities were noticed. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice, dated 16.05.2008, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein. On the same day, the second respondent passed an order, suspending the licence of the petitioner and making alternative arrangement. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the second respondent issued show cause notice and the order of cancellation on one and the same day and the submission of explanation by the petitioner is reduced into an empty formality. He contends that there is nothing to disclose in the impugned order that it is issued as a measure pending enquiry. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits that though the order is not properly worded, it is clear from it that the suspension is ordered pending enquiry. He contends that the very purpose of issuing show cause notice is to conduct enquiry. The Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Control Order’) prescribes the procedure for appointment of Dealers and matters connected therewith. Clause 5 of the Control Order prescribes a detailed procedure to be followed in the matter of issuance of authorization to run Fair Price Shops or cancellation thereof. The second proviso to sub-clause (4) of Clause 5 of the Control Order empowers the disciplinary authority, who is a subordinate to the appointing authority, to suspend the authorization of a Dealer for a period not exceeding 90 days. The power to continue the suspension beyond that period is vested with the appointing authority. The proviso is very clear in its purport that suspension of this nature must be pending enquiry. In the instant case, no period of suspension is mentioned nor it is indicated that the suspension is pending enquiry. Further, the appointing authority himself passed the order of suspension, whereas the Rule confers such power on a different authority. In the absence of any stipulation that the suspension is pending enquiry, or is restricted to any particular period, it is prone to be treated as a substantive penalty, which, in turn, can be imposed only after conducting enquiry. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the second respondent to pass final orders by taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Before that, the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.12.2008 kdl