Point of Law: since the suspension was during pendency of the inquiry initiated against the petitioner and a final order was passed, the petition became infructuous and this Court need not advert to various contentions raised in the Writ Petition

ORDER :

1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents suspending the authorization to run the fair price shop No.0838030, Darisi Gunta Peta Village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Ongole District, in Rc.CS2(6)/235481/2019, dated 19.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent, as contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Schedule Commodities (TPDS) Control Order, 2018 and judgements of this Court in 2012 (6) ALD 723, 2013 (4) ALD 540, 2015 (3) ALD 104, 2015 (3) ALD 659 and 2015 (3) ALD 558, without considering the representation of the petitioner, without any basis and without conducting inquiry and without verifying the report, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as a dealer for the fair price shop No.0838030 of Darisi Gunta Peta Village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Ongole District.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner is a widower aged about 30 years, a member of BC community. Her husband died about four years prior to filing of this petition. She is living with a physically handicapped daughter and two sons. Her first son was prosecuting education with aid of her relatives and thus she is living below poverty line and she is member of Dwakra group (Chaitanya Sahayaka Group).

3. She studied tenth class and considering her qualifications and poverty and being a widow and member of Dwakra group, she was appointed as fair price shop dealer for shop number 0838030 of Darisi Gunta Peta Village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Ongole District, vide orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukuru, in Rc.F.166/2018 dated 09.08.2018. Since the death of her husband, she has been distributing commodities to the cardholders without any remark and to the satisfaction of the cardholders allotted to the shop.

4. To her surprise, she received a show cause notice in Rc.CS2(6)/235481/2019, dated 29.11.2019 calling for explanation within seven days from the date of notice, basing on the alleged report of the 4th respondent, without supported by any material such as the alleged report of the 4th respondent, panchanama, the alleged complaint of villagers and the statements of the villagers. A show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent without any material and it clearly establishes that the 4th respondent has enquired based on the complaint of the cardholders that the petitioner has not distributed commodities properly and reported that he verified the stocks available and found no variation. Despite such report, show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent without any basis and later the authorization of the petitioner for the fair price shop number 0838030 was suspended without any basis. Thus, the 2nd respondent predetermined to terminate the dealership of the petitioner only with a view to accommodate a person of their interest due to political pressure and thereby the order passed by the respondent impugned in the Writ Petition, is illegal and contrary to the law and requested to set aside the same.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter admitting appointment of the petitioner as a temporary fair price shop dealer and passing of impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner for the shop number 0838030 of Darisi Gunta Peta Village, C.S.Puram Mandal, Ongole District, while denying the allegation that there is no material for issuing such show cause notice, suspending the authorization of the petitioner.

6. The specific contention of the respondent is that as there is specific material to conclude that the petitioner committed irregularities in distribution of essential commodities, the interim order is passed as allowing her to continue as dealer, may cause further damage to the system. It is further contended that the appointment of petitioner is only for the convenience of the cardholders, purely on temporary basis with the condition that the fair