ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the Panchanama dated 18.01.2021 whereunder the respondents seized the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and also questioned the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rcf/51/2021 dated 15.03.2021 suspending the authorization of the petitioner pertaining to his Fair Price Shop bearing No.0813043 of Timmayapalem Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting enquiry and withing giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as permanent Dealer of Fair Price Shop No.0813043 of Timmayapalem Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District. Since the date of his appointment, he was discharging his duties by distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint and maintaining the records properly. For the month of January, 2021, the petitioner has received the essential commodities and distributed the same to the card holders. On 18.01.2021, the 4th respondent and his office subordinates inspected the shop of the petitioner and verified the stock available in the shop and the e-Pass machine and the registers. The petitioner informed them that the entire distribution has been completed and hence no stock is available in the shop. Though they did not find any variation in the stock, intentionally with a view to see that this petitioner should be removed at the behest of the ruling party leaders in the village, seized the available stock alleging that there was shortage of 942.55 kgs of rice, 28 kgs of MDM Redgram dal and 2.355 kgs of sugar under the Panchanama dated 18.01.2021 and consequently the Mandal Revenue Inspector sent the report to the 3rd respondent for initiation of appropriate proceedings against this petitioner. 3. Without issuing any notice or without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 was passed by the 3rd respondent suspending the authorization of this petitioner basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, dated 20.01.2021. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 25.03.2021. Immediately, after receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner made an application dated 03.04.2021 requesting to furnish the copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, so as to enable him to submit his complete explanation. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 25.03.2021. Immediately, after receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner made an application dated 03.04.2021 requesting to furnish the copy of the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, so as to enable him to submit his complete explanation. Till date, the copy of this report dated 20.01.2021 was not supplied to this petitioner which is the basis for issuance of the impugned order. The allegation is that there was shortage of 942.55 kgs of rice, 28 kgs of MDM Redgram dal and 2.355 kgs of sugar, but without applying his mind and without issuing the show cause notice, conducted an enquiry independently straight away suspended the authorization of this petitioner and the same is contrary to the law. 4. The specific contention of the petitioner is that his authorization was cancelled by the then Disciplinary authority on the ground that there was shortage of 1096 kgs of rice, 28 kgs of MDM Redgram dal vide order dated 20.04.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Since the appellate authority did not pass any order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9082 of 2020. This Court vide order dated 22.06.2020 granted an interim order suspending the impugned order therein. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner is continued and supplying the commodities to the cardholders. Having failed to succeed in preventing the petitioner to distribute the commodities, the ruling party leaders in the village have influenced the 4th respondent to see that the authorization would be cancelled again by making the allegations. It is further contended that this petitioner never caused any inconvenience to the cardholders in distributing essential commodities, without any complaint either from the cardholders or from the authorities and requested to set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 of the 3rd respondent. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. Whereas the respondents did not file any counter, requests to pass appropriate order on the oral arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Hence, recording the same, I would like to decide the rule controversy between the parties, that is, the legality of the order impugned in the writ petition dated 15.03.2021, passed by the 3rd respondent. 7. 6. Hence, recording the same, I would like to decide the rule controversy between the parties, that is, the legality of the order impugned in the writ petition dated 15.03.2021, passed by the 3rd respondent. 7. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was a Fair Price shop dealer for shop No.0813043 and his authorization was suspended by order dated 15.03.2021 by the 3rd respondent vide Rcf/51/2021 during pendency of the enquiry on the ground that the variation between ground balance and as per e-Pass machine, there was a shortage of 942.55 kgs of PDS rice, 28 kgs of MDM Redgram dal and 2.355 kgs of PDS sugar, allegedly seized under Panchanama dated 18.01.2021. 8. The main contention of the petitioner is that no panchanama was drafted and nothing was seized, to initiate the proceedings. Therefore, the reason for questioning the impugned pachanama itself besides the order impugned in the writ petition is illegal. If really, the panchanama was prepared at the shop in the presence of any panchayatdar, a copy of the panchanama would have been supplied to this petitioner when he made an application for supply of copy of panchanama. Even in the show cause notice, there was no reference about the preparation of panchanama except alleging that there is variation found during the inspection by the concerned authorities and framed charges. If really there is a panchanama, the Mandal Revenue Inspector is required to submit the requisition to the Joint Collector/RDO for initiation of proceedings under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act (for short “E.C.Act”) and simultaneously a separate report to the Disciplinary authority in terms of Clause 20 (i) of the Control Oder 2018. But here, the order impugned in the writ petition is silent as to the panchanama and submission of report with a requisition to initiate proceedings under Section 6A of E.C Act as well as disciplinary proceedings under Clause 22 of Control Order 2018. Even otherwise, according to Clause 8(4) of Control Oder 2018 whenever the competent authority received a report from the concerned, if the authority deems it fit to place the authorization of this petitioner under suspension or terminate the authorization after making necessary enquiry recording the reasons thereof in writing suspend or terminate the authorization during pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. Even otherwise, according to Clause 8(4) of Control Oder 2018 whenever the competent authority received a report from the concerned, if the authority deems it fit to place the authorization of this petitioner under suspension or terminate the authorization after making necessary enquiry recording the reasons thereof in writing suspend or terminate the authorization during pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. In this case, disciplinary proceedings appear to have been initiated, but no show cause notice was issued after two months from the date of alleged inspection despite the demand made by the petitioner for supply of the copy of panchanama, The same was not supplied to this petitioner obviously for the reasons best known to the respondents. 9. According to Clause 8(4) of the Control Oder 2018 an enquiry is to be conducted either to suspend the authorization of this petitioner or to terminate during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry does not mean issuing the show cause notice for suspension or termination of the authorization. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 , the order is bereft of any reasons, thereby the impugned order itself is illegal and contrary to law. He also further contended that no enquiry was conducted and thereby the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of the law declared by this Court in K.Nirmala vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAWS (APH) 2012 (8) 93 and Thyrumala Setty Phanindra, S/o Bhaskara Rao vs. District Collector, LAWS (APH) 2013 (4) 36, on the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments he requested to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 11. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents supported impugned order in all respects while specifically contending that the 2nd respondent afforded opportunity to the petitioner at every stage and thereby the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The contention of the petitioner is in three fold. The first contention is that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted, and it is in violation of principle laid down in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (3) ALD 104 . 13. 12. The contention of the petitioner is in three fold. The first contention is that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted, and it is in violation of principle laid down in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (3) ALD 104 . 13. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two judgments in K.Nirmala’s case (supra) and in Thyrumala Setty Phanindra’s case ( supra). 14. The facts in judgment in Smt.Godasu Thirupalamma’s case (supra) is almost identical to the facts of the present case, there also an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing order to appear personally and submit explanation. Accordingly, explanation was submitted, but on receipt of explanation, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no enquiry in the eye of law and thereby the respondent authorities violated the procedure prescribed for conducting enquiry. Similar to the question in this case. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on reliance on another judgment of Single Judge of this Court in B.Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others , 2015(4) ALT 572 . In view of the law declared in above judgments, the respondents herein did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to adduce evidence, but based on the explanation, show cause notice and other material concluded that the explanation is not convincing and thereby passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition. 16. If the principles laid down in the above judgments are applied to the present facts of case, the order of cancellation of temporary authorization of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 17. Similarly, in K.Nirmala’s case (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “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. 17. Similarly, in K.Nirmala’s case (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “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. This Court has time and again held that an order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. An order of suspension of fair price shop authorization being punitive in nature cannot be resorted to on trivial and flimsy grounds and that unless the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority has the reason to believe that the fair price shop dealer has been indulging in serious irregularities and that his further continuance pending enquiry as a dealer will cause serious prejudice to the public interest, suspension cannot be resorted to. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer till conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders by respondent in W.P.No.34264 to 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.” 18. Same is reiterated in another judgment in Thyrumala Setty’s case (supra) wherein it is held as follows:- “Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. Any order of suspension, even if the same is passed pending enquiry, results in serious adverse consequences to the fair price shop dealer. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. While exercising this power, the appointing authority needs to use a proper sense of proportion. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The main purpose of keeping dealership under suspension pending enquiry is to prevent the dealer from tampering of the record. Therefore, only when serious allegations of commissions and omissions in distribution of the essential commodities in the fair price shop are made and a prima facie case is established against the dealer, the power of suspension of authorization has to be exercised. There may be certain allegations which may not warrant immediate suspension. The case on hand falls in this category where, no suspension is warranted as, it is a matter of verification with reference to evidence whether the petitioner has permitted a benami to run the fair price shop or not. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s fair price shop is run without any variations between the stock register and the ground stock and without there being any complaints, from any cardholders, of improper distribution of commodities and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or the person who is allegedly running the fair price shop is indulging in acts, such as diversion of the essential commodities into black market, the hasty action of respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioner’s authorization cannot be sustained.” 19. Even otherwise in one of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19266 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019 an identical question was considered by this Court and held in Para 7 of the judgment as follows:- “7. 2nd respondent is a quasi judicial authority and required to adjudicate the disputes under Control Order, 2018. 2nd respondent being a quasi judicial authority has to pass a reasoned order, strictly adhering to the requirements under Control Order, 2018. Time and again the Courts held that though the administrative authorities exercising quasi judicial powers, are bound to record its reasons. In exercise of power of judicial review, the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, works contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and brothers [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] had an occasion to deal with an unreasoned order and made certain observations. In exercise of power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by foreign courts as by the courts in India. In exercise of power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. The Apex Court also referred various judgments in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co., of India Ltd. v. Union of India and another [ AIR 1976 SC 1785 ], Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab [ (1979) 2 SCC 368 ] and other judgments in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and others [ (1987) 2 SCC 222 ], Chabungbambohal Singh v. Union of India [1995 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 83] and Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India [ (1998) 2 SCC 242 ], concluded that the absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of reasons, the Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India can set aside the order impugned in the writ petition.” 20. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments to the present case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 21. In view of the law declared by the Single Judge of this Court, it is the duty of the competent authority to conduct necessary enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioner before suspending the authorisation or termination of the authorization of this petitioner in terms of Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018. 21. In view of the law declared by the Single Judge of this Court, it is the duty of the competent authority to conduct necessary enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioner before suspending the authorisation or termination of the authorization of this petitioner in terms of Clause 8(4) of Control Order 2018. In the event of failure to conduct that enquiry as held in the judgments referred above, the suspension order is illegal, arbitrary and the same is contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside, apart from that copy of panchanama is also not furnished to the petitioner despite his application for supply of the same, the panchanama is the foundation but no panchanama is referred in any of the proceedings and show cause notice. 22. In the present facts of the case, no enquiry, more particularly, no opportunity was afforded to enable the petitioner to explain the reason for the alleged variation if any found and seized the essential commodities under the panchanama. In the absence of any enquiry as contemplated under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, the order is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. 23. By applying the principles laid down in the above facts to the present facts of this case, I find that there is efficacious to set aside the impugned order declared as illegal and arbitrary. 24. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rcf/51/2021, dated 15.03.2021, while leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the panchanama, if any, furnished to him on the application already made before the competent authority. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.