P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who was granted an authorisation to run the Fair Price Shop No. 682 situate at Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, has filed this Writ Petition questioning the order of suspension dated 17-6-1993 passed by the 2nd respondent. In the said order, it is stated that the Asst. Supply Officer reported that the Vigilance Cell has registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential commodities Act against the petitioner-on detecting certain irregularities on 10-6-1993 and arrested the dealer. It is then stated as follows:"in view of prima facie evidence, I hereby order for the suspension of authorisation issued to run the F. P. Shop No. 682 under Clause 3 (4) until finalisation of the 6-A case in the Court of the Chief Rationing Officer, hyderabad. "the household supply cards were tagged on to F. P. Shop No. 682. An appeal against the order was preferred to the Chief Rationing Officer, who is the 1st respondentherein, on21-6-1993. The petitioner also sought for stay of operation of the order dated 17-6-1993. As no orders are said to have been passed by the appellate Authority, the present Writ Petition is filed.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader for Civil Supplies at the stage of admission.

( 3 ) THOUGH the exact Control Order under which the power of suspension has been invoked is not mentioned, it is obviously the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. Cl. 3 (4) of the said Order provides for amendment, variation, suspension or cancellation of the authorisation issued to the dealer. The suspension contemplated thereunder is a final order of suspension passed after due enquiry. Indisputably it does not take within its fold the suspension pending enquiry as an interim measure. Suspension pending enquiry is not specifically provided for. However, it can be taken as an implied or ancillary power vested in the authority empowered to exercise the power of cancellation or suspension as envisaged by sub-clause (4) of Clause 3.

( 4 ) IF the order in question is construed to be a final order under Clause 3 (4), the same cannot be sustained having regard to the fact that the impugned suspension was made ex parte with out giving any opportunity of showing cause against the proposed suspension. Apart from the principles of natural justice, sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 itself speaks of an enquiry. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being violative of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory requisite of enquiry as contemplated by Clause 3 (4), if the impugned order is treated as an order passed under Clause 3 (4 ). On the other hand, notwithstanding the incorrect mention of the source of power, the order in question can be said to have been passed as an interim measure pending enquiry or investigation, against the petitioner the impugned order still suffers from certain legal informities. Except referring to the report of the Asst. Supply officer and the filing of the case against the petitioner by the Vigilance Cell for certain irregularities nothing is stated in the impugned order regarding the prima facie violations of the Control Order or the conditions of the authorisation. The mere fact that the Vigilance Cell officials registered a case against the petitioner and arrested him, was perhaps found sufficient to direct immediate suspension of the, licence and mere is no other indication in the impugned order. It is axiomatic that an authority to whom statutory power is vested has to apply his mind independently and to reach a conclusion-prima facie or otherwise whether any order is to be passed in exercise of that power. The prima fade satisfaction must be that of the 2nd respondent but not that of the Vigilance officials. It may be that while exercising the power of suspension pending further enquiry, the adverse material which has come to light in the course of investigation by the Vigilance Officials can be tak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document