THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.22568 of 2009 DATE:22.10.2009 Between: K. Sivananda Reddy ... Petitioner and The Tahsildar, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.22568 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings Rc.No.85/2009/A1, dated 15.07.2009, of the 1st respondent, suspending his authorisation, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to continue him as fair price shop dealer of Shop No.2, Kaspa Noupada village, Santhabommali mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.2, Kaspa Noupada village, and has been supplying the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint. On 15.07.2009, as he was suffering with viral fever, he did not open the shop. On that day, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District - 2nd respondent inspected his shop. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, without issuing any notice, issued proceedings in Rc.No.85/2009/A1 dated 15.07.2009 suspending his authorisation, on vague alegations. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither a notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation nor any enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent, before passing the order under challenge and no period of suspension has been mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, he prays to allow this writ petition. 4. If an order of suspension is by way of a substantive punishment, a duty is cast upon the Authority to specify the period during which the authorisation shall be under suspension. If the order of suspension is by way of an interim punishment during pendency of enquiry, there is no need for the Authority to specify the period. But, the order of suspension shall be only during pendency of enquiry. 5. As seen from the order dated 15.07.2009 impugned in this writ petition, it is clear that the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended without issuing any notice to him and without mentioning the period of suspension as per the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. 6. Apparently, the petitioner has a right of appeal, against the order under challenge. But, in my considered view, the petitioner need not be directed to approach the appellate authority, for the reasons stated supra. 7. In the light of the above discussion,, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order impugned is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, and the proceedings Rc.No.85/2009/A1, dated 15.07.2009, issued by the 1st respondent suspending the authorisation of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop No.2 of Kaspa Noupada village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District, is hereby set aside. However, this order does not preclude the 1st respondent to pass an order afresh, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 22nd October, 2009 CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.22568 of 2009 (Allowed) 22nd October, 2009 cbs