IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5131 of 2008 Between: Seerapu Surappanna Reddy S/o Guravayya, aged about 22 years, R/o Mentada (v), Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam district & Anr. Petitioners AND Karanapu Veeranna, s/o Seethaiah, Mentada (v), Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam district & Ors. ..... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M. KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES MR.A. RAMA RAO for R1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY * * * WRIT PETITION NO. 5131 OF 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside the Order D.Dis.No.63/2008, dated 17-2-2008 issued by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.1 as fair price shop dealer of Mentada village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam district, on the ground that certain quantity of kerosene was being transported in a auto-rickshaw at about 9:30 a.m., at a place called “Pydi Bhimavaram”, which is 20 KMs., away from the fair price shop of Respondent No.1, his authorization was suspended by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ranasthalam, Srikakulam district, by Order No.232/2006, dated 12-10-2006. The said order was questioned before Respondent No.1. The said appeal filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed by Respondent No.2 by his Order No. 257/2007/S-2 dated 19-5-2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before Respondent No.3, who, by his order dated 17-2-2008, impugned in this writ petition, affirmed the order of Respondent No.2 and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. 2. At the hearing, Sri M.Krishna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Respondent No.2 committed serious illegality in reversing the well considered order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. According to him, the Mandal Revenue Officer as a fact found that Respondent No.1 indulged in diversion of kerosene and hence his authorization was rightly suspended by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that such an order ought not to have been interfered by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am not inclined to accept the same. 3. While reversing the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Respondent No.2 verified the records and also found that as per the report of the Civil Supplies Officer of Ranasthalam, who inspected the fair price shop of the appellant, everything was found in order and that register could not be produced and the key of the fair price shop was not available and that at the time of hearing Respondent No.1 produced sugar distribution register and Respondent No.2 verified the same and found that the sugar was distributed to the cardholders. Respondent No.2 found fault with the approach of the Mandal Revenue Officer in linking certain quantity of kerosene, which was detected at a place 20 KMs., away from Respondent No.1’s shop to his fair price shop. I am therefore, satisfied that the order of Respondent No.2 contained sound reasons and Respondent No.3 in my opinion rightly confirmed the said order. In this view of the matter, the orders of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. There is another reason, for my disinclination to interfere with the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely; the present proceedings relate to an order of suspension pending enquiry and the main enquiry itself is pending. If the petitioners, as cardholders, are aggrieved by the alleged irregularities committed by Respondent No.1, they are free to participate in the enquiry to be held by the competent authority. 5. With the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. JUSTICE C . V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 11/3/2008. I s L