IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13679 of 2009 Between: Sudharani W/o.Vishnuvardhan Reddy R/o.5-4-18, Pasariwal Thandur, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Collector (Civil Supplies), Vikarabad, R.R. District. 3 The Deputy Tahsildar, Tandur Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who is dealer of fair price shop bearing No.10 of Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed this writ petition questioning the authority of respondent No.3 to suspend her authorization. On 04.07.2009, respondent No.3 along with AMRI inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and allegedly found certain irregularities. On the same day, he submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) to the Joint Collector. However, in his report, respondent No.3 stated that as the petitioner along with her husband and brother contravened the provisions of the Act, her authorization has been suspended. In this writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has no power or jurisdiction to suspend the authorization of a fair price shop dealer. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that while respondent No.3 has no power to suspend the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued proceedings, dated 07.07.2009 whereby he suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. She placed a copy of the said proceedings before this Court. Though Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 do not conform to law, the validity or otherwise of the same cannot be gone into in this writ petition because, that is not the subject matter of this case. As respondent No.3 does not have power or jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization, to the extent of the order, which was styled as report under Section 6-A of the Act, whereby he purportedly suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization, is set aside. The petitioner is left free to question proceedings, dated 07.07.2009 of respondent No.2 by availing appropriate remedy. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17828 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th JULY, 2009. kvni