IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14087 of 2009 Between: Sudharani W/o.Vishnuvardhan Reddy R/o.5-4-18, Pasariward, Thandur, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department,Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Sanga Reddy, R.R. District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, R.R. District. .RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 07.07.2009, whereby the authorization of the petitioner is kept under suspension. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. On the basis of certain complaints received against the petitioner stating that she was allegedly mixing rice with broken rice, stones and mud and agitations were conducted by the consumers by way of staging dharnas, the stocks from the petitioner’s fair price shop were seized and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were initiated against her. The impugned order has been passed by respondent No.3, wherein the above mentioned facts have been stated and the petitioner’s authorization was suspended “with immediate effect”. The ground on which the petitioner questioned this order is that no mention is made in it that her authorization was suspended pending enquiry. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the impugned order is passed as an interim measure and not as a measure of penalty. It is no doubt true that in the impugned order, respondent No.3 has not mentioned that the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. But on this technical ground, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order when the petitioner is facing serious allegations and more so in view of the clarification given by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the authorization is suspended pending enquiry and not as a measure of punishment. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with the direction to respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate final order, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be given appropriate opportunity to represent her case in the enquiry to be held by respondent No.3. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.18439 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th July, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. vrn