This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order of the 2nd Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, passed in Proceedings Rc.No.A.3113/2011, dated 19-12-2011 suspending the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry, as illegal.

2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of U.Bollavaram Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District. On receipt of complaints from the cardholders, the 3rd Respondent-Tahsildar conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the 2nd Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer that the petitioner was not distributing essential commodities to the cardholders regularly and that he closed the shop during working hours besides failing to remit challan for drawing essential commodities and that the petitioner is working as President of Kurnool District Fishermen Cooperative Society. On a consideration of the said report, the 2nd Respondent initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008 and suspended the authorisation pending enquiry. The 2nd Respondent also issued separate show cause notice dated 19-12-2011 seeking explanation of the petitioner for cancellation of the authorization.

3. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the fact that suspension order and show cause notice were issued simultaneously, would contend that the impugned order is vitiated being violative of clause (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 since the same has been passed without waiting for the explanation, thus denying opportunity to the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has not committed the alleged irregularities and that in any event the allegations are not serious so as to warrant suspension. He would therefore contend that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Government Pleader would however submit that the impugned order is not a final order. The 2nd Respondent is competent to pass an order suspending the authorization pending enquiry. No notice or enquiry is required for exercising the power to keep the authorization under suspension pending enquiry. He would submit that the irregularities noticed are serious in nature and the same will be enquired before final orders are passed. He would therefore contend that issuance of show cause notice and suspension order simultaneously does not vitiate the impugned action.

6. In the light of the above, the questions that arise for consideration are:

Whether a dealer is entitled for notice before suspending an authorization, pending enquiry; and whether the impugned order is vitiated merely because show cause notice is issued simultaneously.

7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issues, it is required to notice the relevant provisions which are as follows :

Clause 5 (5) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2008 reads as follows :

(5) The appointing authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorized establishment on suo-motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him under this clause.

Clause 5 (6) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2008 reads as follows :

(6) The disciplinary authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer, hawker or authorized establishment on suo-motu after making such enquiry as deemed necessary and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, in the interest of public make alternate arrangement i.e. tagging on the house hold supply cards to the nearby fair price shop and also suspend