IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19313 of 2008 Between: Smt. G.Chandrakala, W/o. Dathatraya, IDA, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.District at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in his Proceedings No.C/3959/2008 dated 23.08.2008 suspending the Authorization of the Petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.216, APIIC Colony, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District as null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19313 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the respondent dated 23.08.2008 thereby suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry is arbitrary and illegal. While relying upon the decision of this Court in P.Hanumantha Rao vs. The Chief Rationing Officer, Twin Cities, Hyderabad[1] it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension solely on the ground that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) are pending against the petitioner, is contrary to law. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, I do not ﬁnd any substance in the said contention. The impugned order dated 23.08.2008 itself shows that certain variations were found in the stocks when the shop in question was inspected and the stocks were verified. It is true that on the very same ground the stocks were seized and proceedings were also initiated under Section 6-A of the Act. However, it cannot be held that the impugned order of suspension is only on the ground that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending. Variation in the stocks, which amounts to contravention of terms and conditions of authorization is undoubtedly a valid ground under law for suspension of cancellation of authorization also. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the respondent to proceed with the enquiry following due process of law. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 06.09.2008 va [1] 1993 (3) ALT 442