JUDGMENT : Whether Tahsildar is competent to suspend the fair price shop (FPS) dealership authorisation pending enquiry into allegations of contravention of the conditions of authorisation and the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (2008 Control Order)? This question which has some significance in day-to-day regulation of public distribution of essential commodities arises in this writ petition. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The petitioner is FPS dealer of Boddavalasa Village of Rajam Mandal in Srikakulam District, statedly for the last four decades. The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Rajam submitted a report to third respondent alleging irregularities in maintaining petitioner’s FPS. Acting on the said report, third respondent issued proceedings dated 03.10.2009 temporarily suspending petitioner pending final action by the appointing authority on an allegation that petitioner committed certain irregularities and contravened clauses 17(b) and (c) of 2008 Control Order. Assailing the same, the writ petition is filed. This Court while directing the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to get instructions passed orders on 20.11.2009 suspending the impugned order, which was extended thereafter. The third respondent has now come forward with an application being W.V. M.P. No. 518 of 2010 for vacating the interim order. Counter affidavit is also filed pointing out that on credible information, the Deputy Tahsildar, Rajam inspected petitioner’s FPS and found that petitioner sold one quintal of PDS rice to Suri Ramesh of Penasam Village in black market and that there were variations in the stock position. A case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity) was also booked and report submitted to first respondent. The counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies made their submissions in relation to the question pointed out supra. The 2008 Control Order repealed Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (2001 Control Order) which in turn superseded Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (1973 Control Order). It may be mentioned that in 1973 Control Order or 2001 Control Order, Mandal Revenue Officer except as Vigilance authority, had no role in the appointment or disciplinary action against FPS dealer. It may be mentioned that in 1973 Control Order or 2001 Control Order, Mandal Revenue Officer except as Vigilance authority, had no role in the appointment or disciplinary action against FPS dealer. But, 2008 Control Order specifically entrusts Tahsildar in Districts and Assistant Supply Officers (ASOs) in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Tirupathi and Kurnool towns (hereafter referred to as specified towns) with a limited jurisdiction in appointment as well as disciplinary matters. Whether such limited jurisdiction extends to empowering Tahsildar to place FPS dealer in suspension? For the reasons that follow infra, the answer must be in the affirmative. Clauses 2(d) and (e) of 2008 Control Order define ‘appointing authority’. For ready reference, they are extracted below. (d) In respect of F.P.Shops; “Appointing Authority” means District Supply Officer (city) having jurisdiction over the area in respect of Hyderabad District, the District Supply Officer (City) having jurisdiction over the area in respect of Visakhapatnam city and the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub Collector concerned in respect of other districts; (e) In respect of Nominated Retailer/Hawker “Appointing Authority” means the Assistant Supply Officer in respect of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam city and Vijayawada city and the Tahsildar in respect of other Districts; The District Supply Officer (DSO) in Hyderabad and in Visakhapatnam city and Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) or Sub Collector in the Districts are appointing authorities in respect of FPSs. But as per clause 2(e) in respect of nominated retailer/hawker of kerosene, ASOs and Tahsildars are also appointing authorities. Be it noted, the authorised fair price shop and nominated retailer/hawker are also defined by clauses 2(g), (h) and (i) respectively. ‘Disciplinary authority’ is defined in clause 2(x) of 2008 Control Order. The same reads as under. “Disciplinary authority” means District Supply Officer having jurisdiction over the area in respect of Hyderabad District, the District Supply Officer (City) having jurisdiction over the area in respect of Visakhapatnam (City) and the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub Collector concerned in respect of other districts and Assistant Supply Officers in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Tirupathi and Kurnool Municipal Corporations and Tahsildars in other areas. (emphasis supplied) It means DSOs in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, RDOs and Sub Collectors in other Districts and ASOs in specified towns and Tahsildars in other areas are disciplinary authorities. In plain terms, ASOs and Tahsildars are also disciplinary authorities. (emphasis supplied) It means DSOs in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, RDOs and Sub Collectors in other Districts and ASOs in specified towns and Tahsildars in other areas are disciplinary authorities. In plain terms, ASOs and Tahsildars are also disciplinary authorities. But, as we presently see the extent of disciplinary jurisdiction exercised by ASOs and Tahsildars is limited in comparison with such jurisdiction of DSOs, RDOs and Sub Collectors. A reading of clause 2(d) and 2(x) would show that in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam cities as well as other Districts, DSO, RDO and Sub Collector are appointing authorities as well as disciplinary authorities. In Hyderabad and other specified towns, ASOs and Tahsildars are not appointing authorities, but they are disciplinary authorities exercising jurisdiction and power in accordance with 2008 Control Order. Therefore, all the designated appointing authorities are certainly disciplinary authorities, but all the designated disciplinary authorities are not appointing authorities. Clause 5 deals with levy of penalty and contains sixteen sub clauses. Clause 5 (5), (6) and (7) are relevant and read as under. (5) The appointing authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorised fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorised establishment on suo motu after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, add to, amend, vary, suspend or cancel the authorisation issued or deemed to be issued to him under this clause. (6) The disciplinary authority may, at any time whether at the request of the authorised fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker or authorised establishment on suo motu after making such enquiry as deemed necessary, and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, in the interest of public make alternate arrangement i.e., tagging on the household supply cards to the nearby fair price shop and also suspend the authorisation and/or forfeit the security deposit partly or wholly. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (4), (5) and (6) above, where a fair price shop dealer/nominated retailer/hawker has been convicted by a Court of law in respect of contravention of any order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) relating to any of the commodities mentioned in the Schedule to this Order, the appointing authority, shall, by order in writing, cancel his authorisation: Provided that such conviction is set aside in any appeal or revision, the appointing authority may, on application in Form-I made by the person whose authorisation has been cancelled, reissue the authorisation to such person: Provided further that the disciplinary authority viz. Assistant Supply Officer/Tahsildar concerned shall also exercise the power of suspending the authoritarian of the erring F.P. Shop dealer and tagging on the cards to the nearest F.P. Shop pending final action by the appointing authority, for a period (90) ninety days only. Further action of continuing the suspension beyond (90) ninety days or cancellation of authorisation shall be taken by the “appointing authority” as well as the disciplinary authority viz. Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub Collector/District Supply Officers. (emphasis supplied) A reading of clauses 2(e), 2(x) and second proviso to clause 5(7) of 2008 Control Order makes it clear that though ASOs in specified towns and Tahsildars in other areas are not appointing authorities, they are disciplinary authorities having competence and jurisdiction to exercise the power of suspending the erring FPS dealers for a period of ninety days only. When the intention of rule making authority is very clear, it is not proper to interpret the rule in a manner of ousting specifically conferred jurisdiction. A perusal of 1973 Control Order in which no role at all is assigned to Tahsildar and a perusal of 2001 Control Order would show that till 06.10.2007 when the second proviso to clause 5(7) therein, was inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 47, dated 06.10.2007, Tahsildar had no role in disciplinary matters. By just mentioned G.O., an amendment was made to 2001 Control Order empowering Tahsildar to exercise the power of suspending FPS dealer for a period of ninety days. From the history of 2008 Control Order it becomes clear that after October 2007, the Tahsildar is competent to place a delinquent FPS dealer under suspension for a period of ninety days. The Counsel for petitioner made an alternative submission. From the history of 2008 Control Order it becomes clear that after October 2007, the Tahsildar is competent to place a delinquent FPS dealer under suspension for a period of ninety days. The Counsel for petitioner made an alternative submission. According to him, the second proviso to clause 5(7) does not control all situations and that it is only concerned with the situation under clause 5(7) which contemplates cancellation of authorization when an FPS dealer is convicted by Court of Law. Reading the plain language of the second proviso, it is not possible to accept the submission although the same was added as proviso to clause 5(7). In the considered opinion of this Court, the second proviso to clause 5(7) has to be read with clause 2(x). So read, it is clear that Tahsildar can exercise power of suspending the erring FPS dealer for a period of ninety days. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.