THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23728 of 2010 Date : 24-9-2010 Between : Smt.K.V. Sudha Rani w/o.Prasad Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of A.P, Represented by its District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23728 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order dated 27-7-2010 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Suplies. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Lingareddy Palli, Kalasapadu Mandal, Rajampet Division, Kadapa District. Her fair price shop was inspected by respondent No.3 along with Mandal Revenue Inspector. During the inspection, it was found that 42.24 Quintals of P.D.S. Rice, 12.25 Quintals of AAY Rice and 1.91 Quintals of Sugar were allotted to the fair price shop of the petitioner for the month of July 2010 and that when asked to produce the combined sales register regarding distribution of essential commodities, the petitioner stated that the said records were presently under safe custody of her husband who has gone out and that she has requested for time to produce them later. While seizing the stocks, a report was sent by respondent No.3 on the basis of which respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, pending enquiry into the alleged irregularities. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Ordinarily, a Writ Petition filed bye-passing the alternative remedy of appeal is not entertained. However, in exceptional cases where the orders impugned in the Writ Petitions are manifestly illegal or they result in grave miscarriage of justice, Writ Petitions filed questioning such orders are entertained (See: Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,[1], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [2]). In the present case, the only reason for suspending the petitioner’s authorization is that at the time of inspection, she failed to produce the relevant registers. While non-production of relevant registers is a lapse, in my opinion, the said lapse is not so serious as to warrant the extreme action of suspension of authorization. In the impugned order, respondent No.2 has not given any finding that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the registers and came out with a false statement that they were in the custody of her husband. It would have been appropriate for respondent No.3 to have given some reasonable time to the petitioner to produce the stock registers before permitting her to conduct further sales. On the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the order of suspension is wholly unwarranted having regard to the trivial nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The respondents are directed to restore authorization of the petitioner to enable her to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders. However, respondent No.3 shall be free to require the petitioner to produce the relevant registers to satisfy himself that the petitioner has distributed the essential commodities properly. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 24-9-2010 Note: Furnish copy in a week. AM [1] (2003) 2 SCC 107 [2] (1998) 8 SCC 1