IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8389 of 2008 Between: Ch. John Subhamani, S/o. Jeevarathnam, Poolathotamitta Village, D.V. Satram Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Doravari Satram Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside show cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 26-07-2007, issued by the respondent, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent issued the impugned proceedings whereby he called upon the petitioner to show cause why his fair price shop authorization shall not be cancelled on the charges, which were framed therein. Simultaneously, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended, pending finalisation of detailed enquiry. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner raised the question of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent to act as disciplinary authority in view of G.O.Ms.No.47, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06-10-2007. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil supplies placed before me G.O.Ms.No.8, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.1) Department, dated 01-02-2006, which amended the definition of ‘disciplinary authority’ to the effect that Assistant Supply Officers in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Tirupathi and Kurnool Municipal Corporations and Mandal Revenue Officers in other areas are disciplinary authorities. He submitted that on the day when the impugned show cause notice-cum-suspension order was passed, respondent had the jurisdiction to act as disciplinary authority. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06-10-2007, by which further amendments were made, shows that the definition of ‘disciplinary authority’ was again amended by restoring the previous position of Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Collector concerned being the disciplinary authorities. It is significant to notice that the amended definition is deemed to have been brought into effect from 06-05-2002. In view of the retrospective amendment of the definition, the respondent is deemed to have no jurisdiction to act as disciplinary authority and issue a show cause notice. By G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 06-10-2007, the respondent is conferred with the limited authority of suspending the authorization of fair price shop dealers for a period of 90 days, pending final action to be taken by the appointing authority i.e., the Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, by which the respondent issued show cause notice-cum-suspension order, cannot be sustained. Since the impugned show cause notice-cum- suspension order was issued on 26-07-2007, and the limited power of suspension of authorization for 90 days has already got exhausted, it is deemed that the said suspension order is not in operation. It shall necessarily mean that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of his authorization. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, this order does not preclude the disciplinary authority viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub- Collector, Gudur, from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if he so chooses. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 17th April, 2008 Note: Furnish cc within a week. (B/o) lur