HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.22602 OF 2011 Date: 10-08-2011 Between G. Lakshmi Devi … Petitioner and Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No. 22602 of 2011 ORAL ORDER Petitioner, who suffered an order suspending his authorization to run the fair price shop has assailed the said order in Rc.No. CSDT/375/2011, dated 2.8.2011 of the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, B.K. Samudram Mandal, Anantapur District in this Writ Petition. In pursuance of a news item published on 25.7.2011 reporting that the fair price shop dealers in B.K. Samudram mandal diverted Palmolive Oil in the month of July, 2011 to the black Market without distributing to the Card holders, an enquiry was caused through the Deputy Tahsildars. The Deputy Tahsildar(CS), Gooty inspected the shop of the petitioner on 27.7.2011 and detected that the petitioner did not distribute Palmolive Oil for the month of July, 2011. He diverted the stock to black market and that he did not maintain the sales and stocks registers properly. Therefore, a report dated 27.7.2011 to the said effect was submitted to the 2nd respondent. The stock available in his shop was also seized alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Basing on the said report, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar in exercise of his powers under G.O.Ms.No.47, Consumer Affiars, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 6.10.2007 suspended the authorization for a period of 90 days or till the action is taken by the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tahsildar has no power to suspend the authorization and that it is the Revenue Divisional Officer alone, who is competent and therefore the order is illegal. I am unable to accept the said contention. As per the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order), originally the power to suspend or cancel the authorization was vested in the appointing authority. An amendment was issued in G.O.Ms.No. 47, dated 6.10.2007 incorporating a proviso to clause 5(vii) to the said Control Order authorizing the Tahsildar also to exercise the powers to suspend the authorization, pending final action by the appointing authority for a period of 90 days. Thus, as per the amended provision, the 2nd respondent is competent to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the 2nd respondent has not examined the mater with reference to Control Order and suspended the license merely on the ground that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court reported in SHAK RAHEEMA Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR, NELLORE[1], AZMEERA BOOPATHI NAYAK Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR (CIVIL SUPPLIES), KARIMNAGAR & OTHERS[2], and G. ANJANEYULU Vs. COLLECTOR(CIVIL SUPPLIES), MAHABUBNAGAR & OTHERS[3]. This Court in the aforesaid judgments has taken a view that simply because the proceedings are initiated under Section 6-A of the Act, authorization is not liable for suspension or cancellation. But, the said principle is not applicable to the facts in the instant case. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent has passed the order specifically taking cognizance of the report dated 27.7.2011 of the Deputy Tahsildar(CS) alleging that the petitioner failed to distribute the P. Oil for the month of July, 2011 and diverted the stock to black market and that he failed to maintain the sales and stock registers properly. Under Clause 19 of the Control Order, a fair price shop dealer is under an obligation to follow the conditions stipulated in paragraph 2 of Annexure-I appended to the said Order. Sub-clause (5) of Clause (2) of Annexure-I of Control Order mandates that an authorization issued under the order shall be liable for suspension or cancellation as the case may be, if the fair price shop dealer is involved in any criminal case or when any case under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or any other similar law is pending against him. In view of the said provisions, the petitioner is bound to follow the conditions stipulated in Control Order, for the failure of which, action is permissible against the authorization of the dealer. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the impugned order issued suspending authorization cannot be said to be illegal. No other point canvassed, except as above, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits for the aforesaid reasons, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 10.8.2011 CHV [1] 2008(1) ALD 768 [2] 2008(4) ALD 513 [3] 2005(2) ALT 410