IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 24880 of 2009 Between: A.Srinivasulu ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.24880 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of shop No.33, Padpattabylu village of Pakala Mandal, and on the basis of a report issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, dated 14-09-2009, stating that the petitioner is not distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and is committing irregularities, the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, suspended his authorization on 20-09-2009. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 402 cardholders are allotted to the petitioner’s shop and the petitioner has to distribute @ 3 liters to each cardholder and the supply of kerosene is about to 1200 liters every month. However, during the month of September 2009, because of the short supply, i.e. supply of only 400 liters of kerosene only, he distributed kerosene @ 1 liter to each cardholder. When there is shortage of supply, according to the petitioner, the authorities cannot expect the petitioner to distribute @ 3 liters per cardholder. 4. In the light of the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions. Despite the fact that the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions, he did not receive any instructions. 5. From the above, it is clear that the respondent authorities, while suspending the authorization of the petitioner, have not applied their mind in ascertaining the fact as to whether the petitioner has really committed any irregularity or not. However, as the 1st respondent is seized of the matter, and he is holding an enquiry, it may not be necessary to express any views on the merits of the case and the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, directing the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, to complete the enquiry, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this writ petition. He is further directed to supply the scheduled commodities to the petitioner enabling him to distribute the same to the cardholders in the interregnum. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 5th December 2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o. KVR