M ABRAHAM Vs. TAHSILDAR KANAGANAPALLI MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer for shop No. 27 of Tagarakunta Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. His shop was inspected by the Deputy Tahsildar on 02.07.2011. A variation of 6.20 quintals of rice was found and hence, the Tahsildar, Kanaganapalli Mandal passed an order suspending the authorization of the writ petitioner in terms of the power available to him under Clause 5(7) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that, without either extending the period of suspension or getting the same confirmed by the disciplinary authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petitioner is prevented from lifting and distributing the essential commodities after expiry of the 90 days period.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 has been promulgated in exercise of the power available under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 2(d) defines the expression "appointing authority" in the following terms:

(3.) The second proviso to sub-clause (7) empowers the Assistant Supply Officer or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, also to exercise the power of suspending the authorization of an erring fair price shop dealer and tagging on the cards to the nearest fair price shop dealer pending further action by the appointing authority for a period of 90 days. Thus, sub-clause (7) has put an embargo or a ceiling upon the exercise of power by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority can suspend the authorization, upon being satisfied in the facts and circumstances of each case that such a measure is truly warranted to pass any such order for a period of 90 days. Therefore, if a disciplinary authority viz. Assistant Supply Officer/Tahsildar has passed an order, suspending the authorization, it must be construed as the one relating to the exercise of power available under the second proviso to Clause 5(7) of the 2008 Order. Under law, what is relevant is availability of a provision conferring power to be exercised by the agency. Either mis-quoting or wrong reference to the source of such power is absolutely irrelevant ( Om Prakash v. State of U.P., 2004 3 SCC 402 and B.S.E. Brokers Forum v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2001 3 SCC 482).