IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO:17089 OF 2007 DATED:11.11.2010 Between: M.Seenu .....PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Collector, Nellore & another .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO:17089 OF 2007 ORDER: The writ petition is filed to declare the orders in Rc.B.178/2007, dated 9.7.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, viz., Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District, whereby the Fair price shop authorisation of the petitioner is temporarily suspended, as illegal. The petitioner is a Fair price shop dealer in respect of shop No:2 of Saipet village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District. It appears that the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Kaligiri and the Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Kondapuram inspected the Fair price shop of the petitioner and found certain irregularities. The alleged inspection was reported in a Telugu Daily News paper, dated 5.7.2007 and based on the said News paper report, the 2nd respondent, viz., Tahsildar, Kondapuram Mandal passed the impugned order temporarily suspending the authorisation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P for Civil Supplies. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order merely based on a News paper report and without applying the mind to the facts of the case. He further contends that the News paper report cannot be the basis for suspending the authorisation. On the other hand, the learned G.P submits that the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act have already been initiated and the enquiry is still pending and the petitioner can as well participate in the enquiry and defend his case. It is true that the 2nd respondent has suspended the licence based on a News paper report. If there was an inspection conducted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar and the Mandal Revenue Inspector and if the said officers had detected any irregularities, the 2nd respondent could have called for the report and pass appropriate orders after considering the said report. The impugned order also does not disclose independent application of mind. In my view, the impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders based on relevant material or take any other appropriate action as per law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. _______________ Justice Noushad Ali Date:11.11.2010. gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO:17089 OF 2007 11th November, 2010