CYRIAC JOSEPH, C. J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32181 /2004 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE appellant is an authorised dealer of a Fair Price Depot under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution system) Control Order, 1992. On the basis of complaints regarding irregularities in the distribution of foodgrains through the appellants fair price depot, the 2nd respondent conducted a surprise inspection on 20. 7. 2004. Based on the report of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner issued Annexure-B notice dated 27. 07. 2004 requiring the appellant to show cause why action should not be taken against him in respect of the authorisation given to him under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution system) Control Order, 1992. On 31. 7. 2004 the 2nd respondent -Tahsildar issued Annexure-C order authorising the 3rd respondent to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders of the appellant's fair price depot. Challenging Annexure-B and C, the appellant filed the writ petition. The respondents opposed the prayers in the writ petition by filing a statement of objection. The learned Single Judge recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 that no final order had been passed in respect of the petitioner's fair price depot and that after receiving the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the 1st respondent will pass appropriate orders. In view of the above submission of the Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge held that it was not a fit case to warrant interference and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the appellant is that Annexure-C order was passed before the expiry of the period of one week given in annexure-B show cause notice for submitting explanation. It is contended that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to issue Annexure-C before the the expiry of the period of one week granted for submitting explanation. We do not find any merit in this contention. It is contended that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to issue Annexure-C before the the expiry of the period of one week granted for submitting explanation. We do not find any merit in this contention. Obviously Annexure-B is a show cause issued under Clause 12 (1) of the Karnataka Essential commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 which confers power on the Authorised Authority to cancel the authorisation given to an authorised dealer of the fair price depot after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Clause 12 (2) of the said Control order confers power on the Authorised Authority to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry for cancellation of authorisation, if the authorised Authority is satisfied that prima facie the conditions of the authorisation or the provisions of the order are contravened. Even though Annexure-C order does not specifically refer to any suspension under Clause-12 (2), Annexure-C order amounts to suspension of the authorisation and making alternative arrangement for distribution of the essential commodities through the 3rd respondent. No notice is required to be issued before passing an order of suspension under clause 12 (2 ). Therefore the contention of the appellant that Annexure-C could not have been issued before the expiry of one week granted in annexure-B for submitting explanation, is without any legal basis. Annexure-C notice was in respect of the proposed cancellation of the authorisation. Admittely, no orders was passed cancelling the authorisation before the expiry of the period of one week mentioned in Annexure-C. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the 2nd respondent is not competent to issue an order in the nature of annexure-C and that only the 1st respondent is competent to issue an order under Clause 12 (2) of the Control Order. No such averment is made either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. Hence we cannot entertain such a contention or adjudicate on the same, especially when the appellant could have approached the Government against Annexure-C under Clause20 of the Kamataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution system) Control Order, 1992. ( 5 ) IN the above circumstances, we decline to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. At the same time we deem it just and necessary to direct the 1st respondent to pass final orders pursuant to annexure-B show cause notice. ( 5 ) IN the above circumstances, we decline to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. At the same time we deem it just and necessary to direct the 1st respondent to pass final orders pursuant to annexure-B show cause notice. Since the appellant has not given any reply to Annexure-B show cause notice in view of the filing of the writ petition, we find it just and proper to give him an opportunity to file his explanation. Hence, if the appellant files his reply to Annexure-B within one week from today, the 1st respondent shall consider such explanation and pass final orders pursuant to Annexure-B show cause notice as early as possible. ( 6 ) THE above direction to pass final orders pursuant to Annexure-B show cause notice will not be operative, if final order have already been passed by the 1st respondent. In case the 1st respondent has already passed the final order, the appellant may file appeal against such order under Clause-17 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.