IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27086 of 2008 Between: Kota Venkateswarlu, S/o. Late Sri Nagasubbaiah, Hindu, Pasupugallu Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukuru, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in Proceedings RCF/802/2008 dt. 26-11-2008, cancelling the Fair Price Shop Dealership Authorization of the Petitioner of Pasupugallu Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting enquiry and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and the consequential inaction of the 1st Respondent in not considering and disposing of the Appeal Petition No. RC.CS2/5092 dt. 4-12-2008, filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the 2nd Respondent dt. 26-11-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, improper, vitiated bad in law and contrary to the provisions of AP State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001/2003 and violative of Principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJANIKANTH JWALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27086 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings, dated 26.11.2008, canceling the authorization of the petitioner as dealer of Fair Price Shop of Pasupugallu village, Mundlamuri Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting any enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in not considering and disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Prima facie, a reading of the impugned order, dated 26.11.2008, does not indicate that any concrete evidence has been collected to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent on 04.12.2008, along with a miscellaneous petition seeking interim stay of the impugned proceedings, but the petitioner complains that neither the miscellaneous petition is disposed of nor the appeal is taken up for consideration. In the circumstances, since the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the impugned proceedings, dated 26.11.2008, shall not be given effect to and the petitioner shall be permitted to run the fair price shop as usual. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.12.2008 Note: Furnish CC in three days B/o v v