THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10221 of 2005 23.8.2005 Between: Ch.Ramadevi, W/o.Haribabu … Petitioner AND 1. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and two others … Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Singarakondapalem of Addanki Mandal in Prakasam District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki, the third respondent herein, submitted a report to the second respondent alleging that the petitioner misused 28 Kgs of rice making double entries in respect of two cards, that the petitioner misused 56 Kgs of rice, distributing of Public Distribution System rice two three Annapurna Anthyodaya Yojana (AAY) cardholders before distributing AAY rice, that he made double entries in respect of eight cards and misused 32 liters of Kerosene oil, and that there were 79 three members cards and 89 three member cards were made in the sales register. Based on the report, the second respondent framed four charges and called upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken under A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (Control Order, for brevity). The petitioner submitted explanation on 08.4.2005. After considering the same, the second respondent passed orders on 15.4.2005. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: As the explanation filed by the dealer is not convincing, as per the recommendations of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki and as per the instructions of the Joint Collector, Ongole and basing on the gravity of the case and there is prima facie in this case that the dealer has committed certain irregularities in distribution of ECs and the dealer has contravened the provisions contained the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control (Order), 2001 the dealership authorization of Sri Ch.Ramadevi, Singarakondapalem (V) of Addanki is hereby suspended pending enquiry into the case for a period of 3 months or till the finalization of disciplinary proceedings by this Office. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki is requested to implement the above orders immediately. On 20.4.2004, the second respondent modified the above paragraph as under: As the explanation filed by the dealer is not convincing, as per the recommendations of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki and basing on the gravity of the case and there is prima facie in this case that the dealer has committed certain irregularities in distribution of ECs and the dealer has contravened the provisions contained the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control (Order), 2001 the dealership authorization of Sri Ch.Ramadevi, Singarakondapalem (V) of Addanki is hereby suspended pending enquiry into the case for a period of 3 months or till the finalization of disciplinary proceedings by this Office. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki is requested to implement the above orders immediately. As can be seen from the two orders, in the earlier order it was stated that the orders are being passed basing on the recommendation of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki and as per the instructions of the Joint Collector, Ongole. However, in the modification order, the phrase “as per the instructions of the Joint Collector, Ongole” is omitted. Be that as it is, the petitioner assailed the order of the second respondent as originally passed on 15.4.2005 mainly on two grounds. First, it is contended that though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, the same was not considered and secondly, the orders were passed on the instructions/directions of the first respondent, who is appellate authority. During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the same contentions. He also submitted that aggrieved by the orders of the second respondent dated 15.4.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 20 of the Control Order before the first respondent but, the same was not taken up. The learned Assistant Government Pleader does not deny that the appeal is still pending before the Joint Collector, Ongole. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of ordering status quo as on today, directing the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The orders of status quo shall be in force only till the disposal of the appeal by the first respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) August 23, 2005 YS