IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23183 of 2009 Between: Udathala Bikshapathi, S/o Late U.Balanarasaiah, 45 years, F.P. Shop Dealer, Door No.3-13, Kolthoor village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, R.R. District at Malakunta Road, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.23183 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not supplying the essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner at Kolthoor village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and tagged on his fair price shop ration cards to another shop even though the authorization of the petitioner is existing, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop forthwith. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer at Kolthoor village, Shamirpet Mandal, Rangareddy District and that he has been distributing essential commodities to all the cardholders in the village, without any complaint. While so, the 2nd respondent tagged on his fair price shop ration cards to the fair price shop dealer of Anantaram village, Shamirpet Mandal on the allegation that the police of Alwal, R.R. District registered a case in Crime No.407 of 2009 for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. It is stated that the authorization of the petitioner is subsisting as on date and that 2nd respondent abruptly stopped the supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner without passing any orders either suspending or canceling his authorization. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. May be it is true that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case. But, that can never be a ground for the authorities to stop the supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner. The respondents have to initiate further action as required under the provisions of the Control Order, 2008. However, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the authorization of the petitioner is still in force as on date. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop so as to distribute the same to the cardholders attached to his shop, provided the authorization of the petitioner is in force. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. No order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 06-11-2009 Gsn.