IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9169 of 2008 Between: P. Uma Yadav ..... PETITIONER AND The Spl. Grade Dy. Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District & another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9169 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare order, dated 21.04.2008 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he suspended the operation of fair price shop dealership of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.57, Mailardevpalli Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 suspended the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner on the basis of a report of respondent No.2 on the following allegations: “ 1. That the dealer Smt. P. Uma Yadav has distributed kerosene oil @ 5 litres as against 6 litres. 2. The dealer has made malafide entries in the sales register by entering 6 litres instead of 5 litres which were distributed to the card holders. 3. That the dealer has failed to obtain signature/thumb impression of the card holders. 4. At the time of inspection it is found that the dealer is not sitting in the FP shop and her father Sri P. Satyanarayana is maintaining FP shop on behalf of his daughter.” While doing so, respondent No.1 gave a categorical finding that it is clearly established that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked this order on two grounds, namely, that without holding any enquiry, respondent No.1 gave an unequivocal finding that the allegations made against the petitioner are clearly established and 2) no time limit is prescribed for suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and carefully perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the same cannot be sustained. Undoubtedly, the power of suspension inheres in respondent No.1 as an incidental or ancillary power to cancel the authorization. But, such a power is required to be exercised in a proper manner. Admittedly, no enquiry has yet been held. Even assuming that respondent No.1 found that there is material against the petitioner to show that she indulged in the alleged irregularities, at best, his satisfaction in that regard can be said to be only prima facie one and there is no warrant for respondent No.1 to give a definite finding that the allegations against the petitioner are clearly established. This clearly shows that respondent No.1 has approached with a pre-conceived mind. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 has not indicated the duration of suspension nor did he mention that the petitioner’s authorization is suspended pending enquiry, which is sine qua non for exercising power to pass an interim order pending holding of enquiry and passing a final order. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. Respondent No.1 is left free to initiate appropriate enquiry and pass final orders, if he so chooses. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.12129 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.04.2008 Note: Issue CC in two days. B/o ES