IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19681 of 2008 Between: J. Hanumakka, W/o. B. Adimruthy, R/o. D.No. 2-9, D. Honnur Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Additional district Magistrate, Ananthapur. 2 The Tahsildar, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapur 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the impugned Order dt. 16-8-2008 in Rc.No. 203/2008 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Principles of natural justice and award Costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 19681 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 16.8.2008, whereunder the authorization of the petitioner was suspended for a period of three months or till the disposal of the case. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the 2nd respondent has no power to suspend the authorization held by the petitioner for more than 90 days. Now it is more than 90 days since the authorization of the petitioner was suspended. Even otherwise, while admitting the writ petition on 10.9.2008, the impugned order dated 16.8.2008 was suspended and the petitioner is running his fair-price shop, as usual. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the respondent-authorities to take appropriate action, as per law, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. Till such time, the authorization of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 18-02-2009. MVB.