IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6063 of 2008 Between: Smt. Jasmine,W/o. Wilson, R/o. Rathnapur Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Medak District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, at Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 The Tahsildar, Nyalkal Mandal, at Nyalkal, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.DESHMUKH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6063 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in suspending the Fair Price Shop Dealership of the petitioner relating to Rathnapur Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Medak District vide proceedings No.C/5811/2008 dated 12.03.2008 as illegal, void and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Heard Sri S.R.deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil supplies for the respondents. Respondent No.3, who is competent to suspend the Fair Price Shop Authorization of the petitioner for a period not exceeding ninety {90} days, issued the impugned proceedings, whereby the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Dealership is suspended. Though the period for which the order of suspension is not indicated in the said order, the same should be read as being limited for a period of ninety {90} days from the date it was made. A perusal of the impugned order shows that as many as five {5} allegations have been made against the petitioner pointing out irregularities in running the Fair Price Shop. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.3 issued show cause notice simultaneously on the same day on which he passed the impugned order of suspension, he did not wait till explanation is received from the petitioner and hurriedly suspended the authorization of the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.3 issued show cause notice on the same day calling for explanation for suspension/cancellation of authorization, the impugned order shall be construed as an order passed pending enquiry and passing of a substantive order either for suspension or cancellation. Since the order of suspension is interim in nature, I am of the view that there was no need for respondent No.3 to defer passing of the order of suspension till he considers the explanation of the petitioner to be filed in response to the show cause notice. Since the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal under Clause 20 (1) of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control Orders), 2001, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the order. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of the above mentioned clause before the appellate authority. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th March 2008 RRB