IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13669 of 2009 Between: Smt. K.Ramalaxmi W/o. K.Malleswar Rao R/o. D.No. 14-44-188/9, Brahmanvadi, Circle No. 1, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Asst. Supply Officer, Vijayawada, Cirlce-1 Krishna district. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 04-04-2009, whereby respondent No.1 suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop of Brahmanvadi Circle No.I, Vijayawada, Krishna District. At the hearing, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the allegations, on which the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization has been placed under suspension, cannot be countenanced in law. A perusal of the order shows that on receipt of credible information that the petitioner was unauthorisedly storing rice meant for public distribution system for diversion into black market, the Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, went to New Raja Rajeswaripeta on 23-02-2009 and noticed 12 plastic bags of rice meant for public distribution system lying by the side of Flat No.1877, situated at the terminus end on which the petitioner’s fair price shop is located. He also allegedly found 15 bags of similar rice in the house opposite to the said house. The Assistant Supply Officer inspected the petitioner’s shop and noticed excess stock of 17.62 quintals of rice and 14 liters of kerosene. When he questioned the husband of the petitioner, he stated to have replied that he was purchasing rice meant for public distribution system at Rs.7 per kg from the cardholders and selling the same at Rs.8 per kg to traders. Whether the allegations on which the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop was suspended have factual basis or not requires to be decided after holding an enquiry by the competent authority. At this stage, it is not appropriate to draw inferences and presumptions on the allegations. The fact remains that respondent No.1 is vested with the power to suspend the authorization whenever the fair price shop dealers are, prima facie, found indulging in irregularities. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with such power exercised by respondent No.1, pending enquiry, at this stage. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the inspection was made and proceedings were initiated in April, 2009, respondent No.1 is directed to conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders, after giving the petitioner a fair opportunity of representing her case, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.17817 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th July, 2009 vrn