THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :19511 of 2009 DATED: 15-09-2009 Between: Appanna Surya Venkata Nageswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: Petitioner is a Fair Price shop dealer of shop No.23 of Chemmanagiripeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and he has been distributing the scheduled commodities strictly in accordance with the provisions of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. However, on 30-08-2009, the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar visited the business premises of the petitioner and during the course of verification, he found huge stocks of rice and on the basis of the same he submitted a report to the Collector, who in turn initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to the petitioner to offer his explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against him under the provisions of the Control Order. Petitioner immediately responded and offered his explanation, dated 07-09-2009. After considering the said explanation, an order was passed on 08-09-2009 by the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the said authorization of the petitioner is temporarily suspended. The same is questioned in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent. 3. No doubt, it is true, as contented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that against an order of this nature, regular appeal is provided for under Clause 20 of the Control Order to the Collector, but as the said order ex facie, in my considered view, is illegal, this Court is of the view that there is no need for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. 4. The authorities have powers to suspend any authorization during the pendency of the enquiry. Similarly, the authorities also have powers to suspend the said authorization for a particular period during the pendency of the enquiry. As per Clause 5 of the Control Order, when once an enquiry is ordered, the authorities can either cancel the authorization or suspend the same for a particular period. The question of suspending the licence for a temporary period in my considered view does not arise. Here is a case where the report is dated 31-08-2009 and show cause notice was issued on 02-09-2009 for which the petitioner offered his explanation on 07-09-2009. That means the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry as provided for under the provisions of the Control Order. When once an enquiry as provided for is concluded, the only order that can be passed is either to cancel the authorization or suspend the same for a particular period as stated supra. The question of again suspending the licence temporarily, in my considered view, does not arise. For this reason, this Court is of the view that the said order, dated 08-09- 2009, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. However, it is left open to the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to pass an order afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ T.GOPALAKRISHNA,J 15th September, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. of the order within three days.. B/o Tsy