5THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6761 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at request of the counsel appearing on both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of. 2 Petitioner in this Writ Petition is an authorised Fair Price Shop Dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Bondalawada village, Narpala Mandal, Ananthapur District. 3 In this Writ Petition the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 25.03.2009, issued in RC No.90/09(B) suspending his authorisation by the second respondent – Tahsildar of Narpala Mandal, pending enquiry, before the first respondent. 4 At the stage of admission, this Court has granted interim direction on 01.04.2009. In the impugned order, it is alleged that the petitioner has diverted stocks to black market and he is not behaving properly with the cardholders. It is further alleged that the petitioner is not displaying the price board and he has not maintained the sales and stock registers etc properly. Basing on the aforesaid allegations his authorisation was suspended. 5 In this case it is the case of the Petitioner that the second respondent is not empowered to suspend his authorisation pending enquiry before the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer. The disciplinary action against an authorised fair price shop dealer is governed by the present A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008, a Control Order famed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per the said Control Order, if there is any misconduct on the part of the authorised fair price shop dealer, the Tahsildar is given a limited power to suspend the authorisation of such authorised dealer only for a period of 90 days. As per the said Control Order, there is no power to the Tahsildar to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In any event, this court granted an interim order on 01.04.2009 and the said order is being continued all along. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that subsequently also the petitioner has indulged in malpractices and thus his authorisation was suspended and presently there is an in- charge dealer who is supplying the essential commodities. 6 So far as this Writ Petition is concerned, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 25.03.2009, issued in RC No.90/09(B) passed by the Tahsildar suspending the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Inasmuch as no power is conferred on the Tahsildar to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed, the order passed by the Tahsildar – 2nd respondent dated 25.03.2009, issued in RC.No.90/09(B) is set aside. However, it is made clear that with regard to the allegations, which are part and parcel of the impugned order, it is open to the respondent authorities to enquire into the matter and take steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 26.12.2011 Kvsn