JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. Taking exception to the order dated 20.3.2020 passed by learned single Judge of this Court, disposing of W.P.No.4916 of 2020 directing respondent No.2 to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, calling for her explanation and pass order after holding enquiry, this writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 2. The contention of the appellant-writ petitioner is that as per the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, the competent authority to take action against the appellant is the Joint Collector, but in the present case, on receiving some complaint, the Tahsildar on his own held an enquiry and on the basis of the same, supply of essential commodities to the appellant for public distribution has been stopped. The said procedure is not permissible under the aforesaid Order. However, challenging the same, the writ petitioner approached the writ court. The learned single Judge, while passing the order, in paragraph No.8 observed that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar and the competent authority has not initiated any proceedings. But, direction has been issued to respondent No.2 for issuance of show cause notice to the writ petitioner and on receipt of reply thereto from the writ petitioner, to conduct enquiry on the allegation made against her and pass appropriate orders. 3. The contention of the appellant-writ petitioner is that this is another way of taking action against her under the seal of the Court. Once the authority, who held an enquiry, is not competent, stopping supply of essential commodities to the writ petitioner for public distribution is wholly impermissible. Therefore, the entire action taken by respondent No.4 is not in accordance with law. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the provisions as contained in the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, we are of the considered view that the action so initiated by Tahsildar was without jurisdiction and on the basis of such action, stopping supply of goods under pubic distribution system to the writ petitioner for distribution to the public is also not permissible. It is to further observe that the writ petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which is found correct by the single Judge, however, issuance of direction to the competent authority in a writ petition to hold enquiry in the facts is not required. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by learned single Judge and to grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 5. In consequence, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order passed by learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition n filed by the writ petitioner stands allowed. However, it is open to the aggrieved persons to approach the competent authority. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.