IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17735 of 2006 Between: Ramidi Lakshmaiah … Petitioner AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar District, Karimnagar & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17735 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 19.05.2006 issued by respondent No.2, wherein he suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. A reading of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has come to a final conclusion by saying: “Therefore the F.P. shop dealer has contravened the condition Nos.1, 7 and 8 of the authorization issued under clause 5 (5) of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001.” On the said premise, it is directed “In view of the above, the authorization of Sri Ramidi Laxmaiah fair price shop dealer shop No.1303, Veenavanka Village is hereby suspended.” Under Clause 5 (4) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short, ‘the 2001 Order’) the appointing authority may at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop or authorized establishment or suo motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization. Under this clause, the appointing authority has power to pass final orders, which are substantive in nature and by interpretation of this clause, the Courts held that the power of suspension being incidental or ancillary to the main power, the appointing authority has power to suspend the authorization pending enquiry. But, a reading of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 has come to the final conclusion that the petitioner contravened the conditions. Further he failed to indicate that the authorization was suspended pending enquiry. But, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is averred that pending enquiry, the authorization is suspended. Having carefully considered the impugned order, I am of the view that the order passed by respondent No.2 does not conform to the requirements of an interim order of suspension passed during the pendency of the enquiry. The very fact that he has arrived at the definite finding that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the 2001 Order indicates that respondent No.2 has proceeded with preconceived mind in passing the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any opportunity before coming to this conclusion. Hence, impugned order dated 19.05.2006 is quashed. However, this order does not preclude respondent No.2 from proceeding with the enquiry and passing final order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.22251 of 2006 and WVMP.No.393 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.04.2008 ES