The competent authority has the power to restore the authorization of a fair price shop dealer after suspension, and a temporary dealer has no locus standi to challenge the restoration of the authorization of a permanent dealer.

JUDGMENT

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. - Since the issue to be resolved in these three writ petitions and the parties to the proceedings are the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these three writ petitions by way of this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed in W.P.No.13425 of 2022.

3. In brief, the facts are that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are wife and husband. The 1st petitioner is the daughterin-law of one Smt. Jakku Atchayamma, who died on 10/3/2020. The 7th respondent is the authorized Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.0315012, Jogampet Village, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. While so, the Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam Division, had submitted a report to the 5th respondent against the 7th respondent, basing on the complaints given by the cardholders of the village that the 7th respondent has been drawing the rice of the deceased units and diverting the stock without the knowledge of cardholders and misusing the PDS commodities in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short 'the Control Order, 2018). Pursuant to the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Narsipatnam Division, the 5th respondent issued a show cause notice to the 7th respondent, and vide proceedings dtd. 5/4/2021 suspended her authorization pending enquiry. Thereafter, the 5th respondent kept the 8th respondent in charge of the subject fair price shop, by proceedings dtd. 29/4/2021. Aggrieved by the suspension of her authorization, the 7th respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.No.25263 of 2021 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition on 8/11/2021 with a direction to the respondent authorities to complete the enquiry within two months. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the 5th respondent conducted an enquiry and in the enquiry, it is revealed that the 7th respondent committed an irregularity in distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders. However, the 5th respondent passed an order dtd. 8/4/2022 restoring the authorization of the 7th respondent by imposing a fine of Rs.5, 000.00

i) Assailing the order dtd. 8/4/2022 passed by the 5th respondent, while the petitioners filed W.P.No.13425 of 2022, the 8 th respondent filed W.P.No.16881 of 2022.

ii) By an order dtd. 5/5/2022 in W.P.No.13425 of 2022, while ordering notice before admission, this Court directed the official respondents to see that the essential commodities are distributed to the cardholders through VRO/VRA.

iii) In view of the orders of this Court dtd. 5/5/2022 passed in W.P.No.13425 of 2022, the 5 th respondent vide orders dtd. 11/5/2022 suspended the authorization of the 7th respondent temporarily pending disposal of the said writ petition, and kept the VRA, Jogampeta Village, in charge of the subject Fair Price Shop on temporary basis. Questioning the same, the 7th respondent filed W.P.No.17827 of 2022.

4. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13425 of 2022, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the official respondents, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the 7th respondent in W.P.No.13425 of 2022 and petitioner in W.P.No.17827 of 2022, and Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the 8th respondent and petitioner in W.P.No.16881 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the 5 th respondent is not empowered to restore the authorization of the 7 th respondent by simply imposing a fine of Rs.5, 000.00 having held that the 7th respondent had drawn the rice of deceased units, under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 and therefore, the proceedings of the 5th respondent dtd. 8/4/2022 are liable to be set aside. It is also contended that since the 7th respondent is found to have misused 295 kgs of rice as per the enquiry report, the author