ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in suspending the authorization of the petitioner bearing Rc.No.I/1230/2021 dated 21.07.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (in short “the Control Order”) and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.0816035 of China Kothapalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 2012 and he was issued authorization as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Same was renewed from time to time and renewal was granted upto March, 2020. He has submitted an application along with required challan for renewal of the authorization. When the application is pending for renewal, as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2018, it is deemed to be renewed and subsisting. The petitioner was allowed to lift the essential commodities for the month of July, 2021 also. The petitioner had been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders since 14 years without any complaint. On 04.07.2021, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki along with Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-I and the Village Revenue Officer, China Kothapalli had inspected the petitioner’s shop on 08.07.2021 at about 8.15 P.M in the presence of the mediators and panchanama was also drafted without comparing the physical stock available in the Fair Price Shop with the stock report generated from Adhaar Enabled Public Distribution System (AEPDS) and variations in the stocks were noted. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki submitted a report on 05.07.2021 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole to initiate proceedings under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. Based on the report dated 05.07.2021 of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.07.2021 asking his explanation why his dealership authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.07.2021 explaining the detailed reasons for the variations and denying the charge. The 3rd respondent considering the explanation of the petitioner issued the impugned order dated 21.07.2021 suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.07.2021 explaining the detailed reasons for the variations and denying the charge. The 3rd respondent considering the explanation of the petitioner issued the impugned order dated 21.07.2021 suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Smt Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent authority having issued show cause notice dated 06.07.2021, petitioner submitting explanation on 12.07.2021, without considering the said explanation in its proper perspective, having prima facie, held that the charge is proved, now passed the impugned suspension order. She would further submit that the impugned suspension order is contrary to the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 as no sort of enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent, not even applied his mind to the facts of the case to come to the conclusion that the petitioner shall be kept under suspension as held by this Court in K.Prabhavathi Vs. The State of A.P. 2020(6) ALD 209, wherein it is held that not all follies of a dealer invariably require his suspension pending enquiry and the appointing authority must carefully differentiate between the prima facie case for holding disciplinary enquiry and a compulsory case which requires not only disciplinary enquiry but also suspension pending enquiry. As per the provisions of clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018, the Tahsildar/Inspecting Official has to send separate reports one to the Collector (CS)/Joint Collector to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and another to the Revenue Divisional Officer, disciplinary authority to take disciplinary action against the dealer. But a report was sent to the Collector (CS) to take disciplinary action but he is not the competent authority under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 to take disciplinary action but he is only a 6A authority. A report was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate 6-A proceedings but he is not competent and authorized to initiate such proceedings. He is only disciplinary authority under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. A report was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate 6-A proceedings but he is not competent and authorized to initiate such proceedings. He is only disciplinary authority under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. It shows non application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and also to the report submitted by the inspecting officials which is contrary to the provisions of the clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the excess stock in the month of February, 2021 under MDM scheme Release Order No.RO/MDM/0816035/02/2021/1 that he has converted 30.09 Qtls., PMGKAY rice into MDM rice and allotted the same to MPP School, China Kothapalli and the stock was handed over to the dealer in the month of March, 2021 and due to COVID pandemic, schools were not opened and hence, stocks were not lifted by the Headmasters. The said explanation was not considered properly. Thereafter the petitioner was removed him from the Fair Price Shop Dealership and the same was allotted to the other chosen person at the instance of the local political people. She further submits that on earlier occasion when the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner’s authorization on 07.08.2020, he has approached this Court by way of writ petition, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, passed in W.P.No.14268 of 2020 dated 06.10.0220, the petitioner’s authorization was restored, observing that as the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop Dealership has been suspended without affording any opportunity, the petitioner shall be permitted to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders, pending completion of enquiry by the respondent No.2 and directed the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of 90 days. Again when the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 01.12.2020, the same was restored in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 23.02.2021 in W.P.No.25346 of 2020. The respondent authorities without completing the earlier enquiries find it easy to keep the petitioner out of the dealership by suspending the authorization instead of completing enquiries as per the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 and law laid down by this Court and as such, the suspension order is motivated without any valid reasons. The respondent authorities without completing the earlier enquiries find it easy to keep the petitioner out of the dealership by suspending the authorization instead of completing enquiries as per the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 and law laid down by this Court and as such, the suspension order is motivated without any valid reasons. The impugned suspension order is passed contrary to the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while reiterating the averments of the counter would contend that the petitioner very often committed irregularities in distributing the essential commodities. On inspection by the officials it is found that the there are variations in the stocks. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. As the disciplinary authority is empowered to take appropriate disciplinary action as per the provisions of the clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 the impugned suspension order was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki submitted reports on 05.07.2021 as required under the provisions of clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018 to initiate proceedings under the provisions of 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and to initiate disciplinary action for the irregularities committed by the petitioner as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority has suspended the petitioner’s authorization by the impugned suspension order. On inspection, huge variations were found in the stocks. The petitioner’s explanation was called for. However, against the impugned suspension order, appeal lies to the Joint Collector. Without availing the appeal provision, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court. The writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer in the year 2012. The writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer in the year 2012. When his shop was inspected by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki along with Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Ongole-I and Village Revenue Officer, China Kothapalli on 04.07.2021 at 08.15 PM in the presence of mediators, variations were found in the physical stocks available in the Fair Price Shop to that of the report generated in the AEPDS website and prepared panchanama. A report was submitted to the Collector (CS), Ongole on 05.07.2021 by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki in vernacular language to initiate proceedings under 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and till finalization of the 6-A proceedings, orders may be given to make alternative arrangements without causing inconvenience to the cardholders and take disciplinary action against the dealer under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. The report is filed along with counter at Page 17 to 20. Simultaneously, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki submitted a report on 05.07.2021 to the Revenue Divisional Officer – Appointing Authority and disciplinary authority under the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 to take appropriate action under the provisions of the 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and asked to give permission to make alternative arrangements pending 6-A proceedings against the dealer and Collector (CS) Ongole to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Control Order. But the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Addanki has not asked the Revenue Divisional Officer in specific terms to initiate disciplinary action against the dealer as required under the provisions of Clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 20128. This Court in W.P.No.500 of 2020 dated 08.01.2020 while considering clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018 held at Para-10 of the judgment as follows: “As per Clause ‘q’ of Circular Memo issued by Commissioner, Civil Supplies in No.21/100/2015-AD.1 PP&CCS dated 28.09.2015, proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C.Act are separate, as it empowers to decide as to whether the seized commodities are liable for confiscation or otherwise and no order of suspension/cancellation of authorisation to be issued, based on report. In view of memo and requirement under Clause 20(i) of Control Order, 23018, in the absence of any separate report for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer, the order passed by second respondent cannot be sustained, consequently the same is liable to be set aside, declaring the same as illegal and contrary to Clause 20 (i) of Control Order, 2018.” The disciplinary authority has not properly considered the petitioner’s explanation dated 12.07.2021 submitted to the show cause notice dated 06.07.2021 in its proper perspective objectively with reference to the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018, which reads as follows: “The appointing authority may, at any time in the public interest or on suo motu or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel the authorization issued or deemed to be issued to him/her under this clause. The disciplinary authority without considering the explanation of the petitioner stated that for the month of February, 2021, Release Order for MDM rice of 3588 KGs was issued but the same was not handed over to the MPP School due to COVID-19 pandemic, schools were not opened. Hence, this Court found that there is much force in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities are after the petitioner to see that the petitioner’s authorization is cancelled to enable them to appoint their own chosen person as the Fair Price Shop Dealer at the instance of the local politicians and the same cannot be ruled out as the way in which the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned suspension order without properly considering the evidence on record contrary to the provisions of Clause 20 (i) of the Control Order, 2018. 6. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 21.07.2021 suspending the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorisation is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner’s authorization and continue to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner to supply the same to the cardholders without any interruption, pending final disciplinary action against the petitioner by conducting enquiry as per the provisions of clause 8 (4) of the Control Order, 2018 and the law laid down by this Court in B. Manjula v. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015 (4) ALT 572 , Pidikiti Sailaja v. State of Andhra Pradesh., 2015 (2) ALT 6657, C. Durga Srinivasa Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015 (6) ALD 359 , wherein it is held that before cancellation of the authorization, the disciplinary authority has to conduct himself an enquiry to prove the charges leveled against the dealer, by giving an opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.