IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16561 of 2008 Between: M.Lakshmi Bai, D/o. Subramanyam, D.No.14/463, 14the Ward, Sangampet, Kadapa Town, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa Dsitrict. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4 The Food Inspector and Mill Levy Revenue Inspector, kadapa. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Panchanama on 25-03-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ORAL ORDER: This is an unusual Writ Petition, assailing a mediator’s report dated 25.3.2008. The report dated 25.3.2008 is drawn up in respect of the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in the 14th Ward of Sangampet, Kadapa town and district. The petitioner alleges that without any complaint from the cardholders, the 3rd and 4th respondents inspected the petitioner’s authorized fair price shop on 25.3.2008; seized the stocks and handed them over to the neighboring fair price shop. It is alleged that this visitorial conduct of the Respondents 3 and 4 was on account of the “inﬂuence” of the local people to get the dealership. The petitioner asserts that the procedure followed by the respondents (what procedure is not speciﬁed) is contrary to the guidelines framed by the Civil Supplies department. The petitioner does not choose to plead which guidelines are violated. The petitioner alleges that the respondents have not passed any orders in the matter. What orders the petitioner expects to be passed is also not pleaded. In para (4) of the Writ Petition, the petitioner alleges that only for the purpose of appointing a dealer recommended by local leaders of the town, the proceedings are issued. This is neither a plea of mala ﬁdes nor is there any speciﬁcity in the plea. Neither from the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition nor from the material appended to it, are any proceedings seen to have been issued by the respondents. The only document annexed to the writ petition is the mediator’s report dated 25.3.2008. No allegations regarding prejudice or a n y mala ﬁdes are alleged against any of the persons who acted as mediators and had signed the mediator’s report dated 25.3.2008. The above is a précis of the Writ Petition. The reason for ﬁling the writ petition is not apparent to this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J DATE: 26.08.2008 CVM