IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5582 of 2008 Between: E. Rajasekhar Goud … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Kurnool District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Janardhana Rao Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5582 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing final show cause notice dated 31.10.2007 for cancellation of authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop of Mugathi Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M. Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended by respondent No.2 by order dated 15.02.2004. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted stay of the order passed by respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 and the appeal is still pending before the said authority. On 31.10.2007, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause why his authorization shall not be canceled on the ground that he failed to remit the cost of the essential commodities, lift and distribute the same from November, 2004 and the same is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 01.02.2007. In reply to the said show cause notice the petitioner filed his explanation on 06.12.2007. The petitioner averred that respondent No.2 has not so far passed final orders on the show cause notice. From the abovementioned facts, I am of the view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner already filed explanation to the show cause notice and no order affecting his interest has so far been passed. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 inherently lacks jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. Therefore, this Court will not interdict respondent No.2, who has the authority to issue show cause and pass orders thereon, to exercise his powers to pass a final order on the show cause notice issued by him, more so, when the petitioner already filed his explanation. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As and when any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed, he shall be free to avail his remedies available to him in law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7240 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2008 ES