HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34556 of 2011 Date: 29-12-2011 Between P.Raghunath … Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34556 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner, who is a Fair Price Shop Dealer, has challenged the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, vide Proceedings in Ref.C/2738/2011, dated 20-12-2011, suspending the authorization pending enquiry. 3. The petitioner is Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.36 of Kadapa town besides in charge dealer of Shop No.35. On 13-12-2011 the District Supply Officer, Kadapa along with Assistant Supply Officers, Kadapa and Jammalamadugu Divisions, Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (in charge), Kadapa and Mill Levy Inspector, Kadapa, inspected the shop and seized rice, which is meant for Public Distribution System besides sugar, Palmolive oil and kerosene on detecting variations in the stock of commodities. The District Supply Officer, Kadapa, submitted an inspection report to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, considering the allegations as grave, suspended the authorization pending enquiry. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity in the distribution of commodities and that there is no variation in the stocks. The petitioner distributed commodities to all the cardholders but due to heavy rush, he was not able to obtain signatures or thumb impressions of the card-holders in the Sales Register. Since he was also entrusted with distribution of rice at Re.1/- per kg. for the months of November and December, 2011 at a time, the card-holders could not sign the register acknowledging the receipt of the commodities. It is further contended that the alleged variation is minor in nature and the same does not warrant suspension. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, however, submits that the petitioner, who is entrusted with the distribution of rice meant for Public Distribution System, has indulged in dealing with the commodities without maintaining records for his pecuniary gains. He further submits that an enquiry will be conducted after due notice to the petitioner and the petitioner can as well put-forth the aforesaid facts in the enquiry and defend his case. He further submits that the inspecting team categorically found that there are variations not only in the rice meant for Public Distribution System but also sugar and Palmolive oil, which cannot be considered as minor in nature. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. Whether the petitioner could not make entries in the registers though he distributed commodities and whether he could not take the signatures of the cardholders in the registers in token of receipt of commodities, are all the facts, which require an enquiry and adjudication. 7. Indisputably, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to take disciplinary action to suspend/cancel the authorization as per Clause 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). 8. It is well settled that power to suspend/cancel authorization of a Fair Price Shop Dealer pending enquiry inhers in Clause 5 (5) of the Control Order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 9. However, though an authority is competent to pass an order as an interim measure, the same will have to be exercised judiciously. 10. In the instant case, the 1st respondent has taken the decision on the basis of a report of the inspecting team, which clearly indicated that there are variations in the stock of essential commodities including the rice, which is meant for Public Distribution System. The 1st respondent, therefore, found the allegations as grave and accordingly passed the impugned order. In my considered view, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order on relevant grounds based on relevant material and properly exercising his jurisdiction. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. 12. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.42992 and 42993 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29th December, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34556 of 2011 29th December, 2011. (Ak)