IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 2993 of 2009 Between: Y. Maha Lakshmi W/o. Bhaskara Rao Shop No.18, Ayyanki Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (CS) Krishna District Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Bandar Krishna District. 3 The Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS) Movva Krishna 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 or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issued impugned proceedings in R.C. 935/2008 dated 29- 07-2008 temporarily suspended the authorization of petitioner Fair Price Dealership Shop No. 18 of Ayyanki Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District is arbitrary, illegal, violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore petitioner authorization of petitioner Fair Price Dealership Shop No. 18 of Ayyanki Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2993 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the orders in R.C.No.935/2008 dated 29.07.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, Krishna District. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of F.P.Shop No.18 of Ayyanki Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. While that being so, on the complaint made by MPTC member of Ayyanki village, the 3rd respondent- Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Movva, Krishna District inspected the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner on 09.07.2008 and found the petitioner to have committed certain irregularities. Thereupon, basing on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent and the report submitted by him, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on 29.07.2008 temporarily suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending final investigation and report. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither he was given any opportunity nor any enquiry was conducted on the allegations made against him, before passing the impugned order. Challenging the said impugned order, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. The authorization of the petitioner was suspended way back on 29.07.2008, and though the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order, it appears he has not availed the said remedy. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry contemplated in the impugned order dated 29.07.2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 17.02.2009 v v