IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.9038 of 2007 Between: Tippani Tirupathi. … Petitioner And The Collector (CS), Adilabad, Adilabad District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.V.Muni Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for invalidation of orders dated 18-3-2007 and 23-3-2007 of respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Buttapur village, Kaddam Mandal, Adilabad District. On the basis of an inspection, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) were initiated. Respondent No.1, while giving finding that the verification of records produced before him showed that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of law and certain conditions of authorization, directed respondent No.2 to initiate action by suspending the petitioner’s authorization. A few days later, respondent No.2 passed order dated 23-3-2007, whereby he placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension. This Court, by order dated 26-4-2007 suspended the impugned orders. A perusal of order dated 18-3-2007 passed by respondent No.1 shows that on the strength of the finding given by him, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to place the petitioner’s authorization under suspension. Though respondent No.2 has not made a reference to the said order in his order dated 23-3-2007, it is reasonable to presume that, being the authority subordinate to respondent No.1, he would certainly have been influenced by the direction given by respondent No.1. While disposing of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, respondent No.1 exercised his statutory powers. Though respondent No.2 is his subordinate, he cannot give directions, which will interfere with his functioning as the appointing and disciplinary authority. Giving the direction to place the fair price shop dealer under suspension does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, to the extent of direction given by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 to suspend the petitioner’s authorization, the order of respondent No.2 cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly set aside. As regards the order of suspension passed by respondent No.2, as noted above, the said order having been passed in the aftermath of the direction given by respondent No.1, the same also cannot be sustained. Therefore, order dated 23-3-2007 of respondent No.2 is also set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, liberty is given to respondent No.2 to complete the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-6-2009 MNR