K NIRMALA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No. 2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner's authorization pending enquiry for a period of 90 days and the order dated 08.08.2012 of respondent No. 1 rejecting the petitioner's application for stay pending the appeal. I have heard Sri K. Ram Mohan Chowdary, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

(2.) As regards the prayer for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No. 2, since the same is subject matter of appeal before respondent No. 1, the petitioner is not entitled to question the same in this writ petition. However, with regard to the order dated 08.08.2012 passed by respondent No. 2, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained for two reasons, namely, that the order does not contain any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the stay application and secondly, the allegations on which the petitioner's authorization was suspended are too trivial.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated 31.07.2012 of respondent No. 2 shows that the variation in respect of PDS AAY rice, wheat atta, sugar and pamoline oil is too marginal which probably fall within the permissible variation. The only commodity in respect of which the variation is somewhat substantial is kerosene oil in respect of which respondent No. 2 has allegedly found 24 litres excess on comparison of closing balance with ground balance, out of 793 litres of kerosene oil issued to the petitioner.