THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29067 of 2011 Date: 31.10.2011 Between: B. Mahesh Babu … Petitioner and The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29067 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri N.Aswarthanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Anantapur District, in proceedings Rc.No.K3/1583/2011, dated 19.10.2011, declining to grant stay pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, in D.Dis.No.D1- CS/3664/2011, dated 3.10.2011, cancelling the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorisation, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.30, Bondalawada Village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District. Proceedings were initiated against him under the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 framing the following charges: “Charge-1:- That the F.P. Shop dealer has not distributed 1.57 Qtls of Sugar @ 1 Kg for card including Ramzan Quota, 274 Lts of K.Oil and 157 Kgs of Wheat for the month of August- 2011 and diverted the same into black market for his pecuniary gains. Thereby he has violated clause 17 (b) (c) of APSPDS Control Order 2008. Charge-2:- That the F.P. Shop dealer has not maintained sales register for the month of August-2011. Thereby he has violated clause 22 (vii) of APSPDS Control Order 2008.” 4. A show cause notice dated 16.9.2011 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation in defence of his case. On the failure of the petitioner to submit explanation, the 2nd respondent considered the matter and cancelled the authorisation by order dated 3.10.2011 on finding that the petitioner failed to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders, thus depriving the said benefit to the poor cardholders in S.C. Colony of Bondalawada village. The petitioner states that aggrieved by the said order, he has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent along with an application seeking stay. The 1st respondent while entertaining the said appeal, refused to grant stay by means of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not violate the provisions of the said Control Order and the alleged charges were framed against him at the instance of his political rivals. The learned counsel also contends that the petitioner had, in fact, distributed the commodities, which was evidently supported by the villagers. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that as there is no prima-facie case against the petitioner, the 1st respondent could not have rejected the stay application. 6. I am unable to accept the said contention for two reasons. Firstly, a perusal of the charges framed, which were found against the petitioner, are serious in nature and the petitioner does not appear to have submitted explanation in defence of his case before the 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority. Apparently, taking the same into consideration, the 1st respondent has declined to grant stay and posted the matter for hearing after calling the records concerned. Secondly, prior to the cancellation, the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 6.9.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Narpala Mandal, and the petitioner has not been distributing the commodities eversince then. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. However, since the 1st respondent has already called for the records concerned, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 31.10.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.29067 of 2011 31.10.2011 (Msr)