IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6661 of 2009 Between: Smt. A. Padmavathi, W/o. Govindaiah, R/o. Adivipalem (V), S. Magulur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector (C.S), Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahsildar, S. Magulur, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, keeping the petitioner under indefinite suspension as F.P. Shop Dealer of Adivipalem (V), S. Magulur (M), Prakasam District pursuant to the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, in Rc.1876/G/2008, dated 19-07-2008, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and opposed to the Mandatory Provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control order) 2008 and set-aside the same and further issue direction to the respondents by Writ of Mandamus to permit the petitioner to function as the F.P. shop dealer. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.GOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6661 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It appears, the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Adivipalem Village, Santhamagulur Mandal of Prakasam District, was suspended by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, by proceedings dated 19.07.2008, pending enquiry into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by her. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent- Collector (C.S.), Prakasam District, Ongole. The 1st respondent, having held that there were no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent, disposed of the said appeal on 31.10.2008, with a direction to the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer to finalise the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner within a period of one month, by giving affordable opportunity to her as per law. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of such directions by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has not yet finalized the disciplinary proceedings pending against her and her authorization remained suspended as on date. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, is directed to complete the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of one week from today. If the said exercise is not done within one week from today, the authorization of the petitioner shall stand restored. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 6th April, 2009. Note:- Issue CC by tomorrow BO IBL