LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHARMAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 02.02.2011, of respondent No.1, whereby he has purportedly suspended the petitioner's authorization.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

(3.) THE present case is one which is identical to the facts of the case disposed of by this Court in the above re-produced order. Having followed the entire gamut of procedure for completion of enquiry and passing a final order, respondent No.1 surprisingly suspended the petitioner's authorisation. For making an interim suspension all this procedure was quite unnecessary. THE very fact that respondent No.1 has rendered a conclusive finding that the petitioner's irregularities in running the shop shows that he wanted to impose substantive penalty. As held by this Court, while penalties of suspension and cancellation can be imposed substantively, in the event of suspension being a substantive penalty, its period should be specified.