IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18411 of 2008 BETWEEN L. Jayaprakash. ... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for Shop No.22 of Peruru Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Ananthapur District. In this writ petition he has questioned the order, canceling his authorization, dated 18.07.2008 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide his proceedings in Rc.No.978/08/F. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on certain allegations the authorization granted to him was suspended by the Tahsildar, as against which he preferred an appeal before the RDO. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of considering the appeal on its own merits, the RDO has passed the impugned order canceling his authorization without any enquiry. 3. This Court by way of an interim order dated 05.12.2008 while suspending the impugned order directed the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that consequent to the direction issued by this Court fresh proceedings were initiated and after considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the charges were dropped by imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the petitioner is continued as fair price shop dealer. To that effect, a letter is placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, which is taken on record. 5. In view of the passing of the subsequent order by conducting fresh enquiry in which the charges framed against the petitioner are dropped, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 7, 2011 DSK