C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. These five writ petitions are filed by five fair price shop dealers, feeling aggrieved by separate but identical show cause notices-cum-suspension orders passed by respondent No. 2.

2. Barring W.P. No. 25826 of 2014, the impugned orders are ipsissima verba. The only additional allegation in W.P. No. 25826 of 2014 is that the petitioners fair price shop is being run benami by one R. Prabhakar Reddy.

3. On 04.09.2014, this Court granted interim orders in favour of the petitioners, while adjourning the case by two weeks for filing counter-affidavits by the respondents. Again on 18.09.2014, the cases were adjourned at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for filing counter-affidavits. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has requested for further time for filing counter-affidavits. As sufficient time was granted to the respondents for filing counter-affidavits, I do not find any reasonableness in the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for further time for filing counter-affidavits.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record.

5. The petitioners have been functioning as fair price shop dealers of different fair price shops within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. It is alleged in the impugned proceedings that the Tahsildar, Kadiri, i.e. respondent No. 3 has inspected the fair price shops on different dates in close proximity with each other in August 2014 and submitted his report. Based on the said reports, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned show cause notices-cum-suspension orders.

6. A perusal of the impugned orders in W.P. Nos. 25823, 25830, 25834 and 25838 of 2014 would show the imputations made against the petitioners are identical and the whole purport of these imputations is that the petitioners have not been distributing essential commodities on all thirty days in a month, that they have not been treating the cardholders respectfully, that they have not been maintaining the records and stock registers properly, that they have been distributing commodities by under-weighing and overpricing and that they have not been displaying stock boards and pricelists.

7. The additional allegation made in W.P. No. 25826 of 2014 is that the petitioner therein has allowed one R. Prabhakar Reddy to run the shop as her benami.

8. The petitioners specifically pleaded that respondent No. 2 has suspended their authorizations at the instance of the local M.L.A.

9. As rightly pleaded by the petitioners, no specific allegation of misfeasance and malfeasance in the running of shops such as diversion of essential commodities into black market has been made; nor respondent No. 2 found any variation in stocks in any of these cases. All the allegations are absolutely generic in nature without reference to any particular instance with regard to the commodities distributed by the petitioners.

10. The flimsy nature of the allegations is further evident from the impugned order in W.P. No. 25826 of 2014. The petitioner therein specifically pleaded that she is the wife of one R. Prabhakar Reddy. Allegation No. 1 in the impugned order in the said writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner is allowing one R. Prabhakar Reddy as her benami to run the fair price shop.

11. Under clause 2 of Annexure-I of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, every authorized fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker shall only conduct the business and he/she shall be held responsible for all the acts of commission or omission in running the shop with the assistance of any family member. Thus under his clause a family member of the fair price shop dealer is entitled to assist him/her in the running of the shop and the dealer is vicariously liable for his/her actions. Undisputedly, Mr. R. Prabhakar Reddy, who was found t