IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10326 of 2008 Between: Yelabolu Sambasiva Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu R/o. Pitchikalapalem Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. 3 The Joint Collector, & Addl. District magistrate, Guntur District. .....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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the first respondent in keeping the F.P. Shop Authorization of the petitioner under Suspension indefinitely under the proceedings Rc895/05-E dt. 18-5-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10326 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is the authorizee of the Fair Price Shop in Pitchikalapalem village, Savalyapuram mandal, Guntur district. By an order dated 18-05-2005, the first respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner on allegations of commission of certain irregularities. Earlier the writ petitioner filed W.P.No. 22715 of 2006 challenging the orders of suspension of the authorization pending enquiry. The writ petition was disposed of by the order of this Court dated 21-11-2006. As the petitioner was claimed to have filed an appeal before the Joint Collector against the order of suspension pending enquiry by the R.D.O. along with an application for interim stay, this Court directed the Joint Collector to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging that neither was the appeal disposed of nor final enquiry conducted by the first respondent into the allegations which led to the suspension, the writ petition is filed. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions from the RDO and the Joint Collector concerned. While the Joint Collector informs that the petitioner had filed no appeal against the order of suspension of the authorization, the R.D.O. asserts that the show cause notice is issued to the petitioner on 26-06-2008 calling upon the petitioner to respond to the allegations which led to the suspension of his authorization in May, 2005. The RDO takes the stand that from the order of this Court in W.P.No. 22715 of 2006 he presumed that the appeal was pending before the Joint Collector and therefore he did not proceed with the final determination. The conduct of both the Joint Collector and the RDO are grossly negligent. Having been a respondent to the writ petition in which an order was passed to dispose of a pending appeal, if the Joint Collector was of the view on the basis of the record that there was no appeal pending ought to have informed this Court by a subsequent appropriate application that there was no such appeal pending. He should have at least directed the RDO to intimate to the petitioner that no such appeal is pending. Insofar as the RDO is concerned absolutely no factual or legal basis exists for failing to finalize the enquiry against the petitioner into the allegations that led to the order of suspension pending enquiry being passed. A learned Division Bench of this Court in The Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima1 had observed that maximum period of suspension of authorization of a dealer could be ninety (90) days and that if proceedings are not concluded by the RDO within that period, the suspension should be revoked or set aside. Following this judgment, another learned single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur2 set aside the order of suspension dated 04-06-2004 on the ground that the respondents therein did not conclude the enquiry within ninety (90) days. On principle and authority therefore the order issued by the first respondent bearing proceedings Rc.No.895/05-B dated 18-05-2005 is unsustainable on account of continued suspension of authorization without finalizing the enquiry into the allegations. What is a preemptive power is converted into a punitive power by executive callousness. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The respondents are however at liberty to expeditiously conclude the enquiry into the allegations which led to the issuance of an order of suspension of authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 27-06-2008 Pvks/* 1 1996 (1) APLJ 285 2 . 2007 (6) ALT 240