IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8481 of 2008 Between: Indira Sambhavana Sangam, rep by Smt. J. Govardhana Bai Fair Price shop Dealer, Keshavapuram, Damacharla Mandal, Nalgonda district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, nalgonda Nalgonda District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district. 3 The Tahasildar, Damaracharla Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.L.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, which claims to be a self-help group, filed this writ petition questioning proceedings, dated 11.04.2008 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization pending enquiry. Heard Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The petitioner’s authorization has been suspended mainly on the following three grounds: 1. that the petitioner society did not exist from February, 2006 to February, 2008 and that Smt. J.Govardhana Bai, who represents the petitioner, was a member of another self-help group, namely, Lakshmi Sambavana Sangam earlier and she again joined the petitioner society in February, 2008; 2. that there was a shortage of 18 kgs of rice and 30 liters of kerosene oil, and 3. that the commodities were sold at higher prices. A show cause notice was issued on 01.04.2008 wherein the petitioner was called upon to submit its explanation within three (3) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Since the enquiry is pending before respondent No.2, it is not proper for this Court to express conclusive opinion on the merits or otherwise of the allegations contained in the impugned proceedings, but for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is necessary for this Court to observe that prima facie, the allegations contained in the impugned proceedings and the show cause notice appear to be frivolous. The allegation that the petitioner society did not exist from February, 2006 to February, 2008 appears to be specious and in the very nature of this allegation, respondent No.2 is impliedly admitting that the society came back into existence at least from March, 2008. Having not taken any action during the period in which the society allegedly did not exist, I fail to see any reason for respondent No.2 to suspend the authorization of the petitioner after the society came back into existence. The allegations such as shortage of 18 kgs of rice, 30 liters of kerosene oil and sale of commodities at higher prices, in my considered opinion, are not of the nature, which warrants an ex parte suspension of fair price shop authorization. It would quite well be that eventually, it may turn out that there may not be any truth in the said two allegations. The fact that the petitioner was called upon to submit its explanation within three days from the date of receipt of show cause notice speaks of the haste in which respondent No.2 acted and it suggests that he was only waiting for an opportunity to suspend the petitioner’s authorization. In the nature of the allegations, I do not see any justification whatsoever for respondent No.2 to give just three days time to the petitioner to submit its explanation. Having carefully considered the case in its entirety, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2 suffer from patent arbitrariness and the same are accordingly set aside. Respondent No.2 is given liberty to hold enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in pursuance of show cause notice, dated 01.04.2008. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2008 Note: furnish c.c. in three(3) days. B/o kvni