THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16120 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 1st respondent in rejecting the relief sought for in the application in the appeal filed by him, by proceedings in Rc.No.F/DMV/734/2009, dated 02.07.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Chintalapalli village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapur District long back. The Deputy Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal and the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Dharmavaram Mandal, having inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner, sent a report dated 24.06.2009 to the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram Mandal - 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner committed certain irregularities. Basing on that report, the 2nd respondent has suspended the authorisation of the petitioner by proceedings in Rc.No.155/09, dated 27.06.2009, as per the 2nd proviso of Sub-clause 7 of Clause 5 of the A.P.State Public Distribution System Control Order 2001. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharmavaram Mandal - 1st respondent along with an application seeking suspension of the orders dated 27.06.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and the request of the petitioner to grant stay was rejected on the ground that the irregularities committed by the petitioner are grave in nature, by proceedings in Rc.No.F/DMV/734/2009, dated 02.07.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 2nd respondent, without perceiving the factual aspects, merely relying on the alleged report dated 24.06.2009, suspended the authorisation of the petitioner, that the 1st respondent, without testing the instant case under Clause 20 of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, rejected the request of the petitoner to grant stay of operation of the order of the 2nd respondent, and that the respondents did not furnish a copy of the alleged report dated 24.06.2009 to the petitioner. 5. Apparently, the petitioner has supplied essential commodities to the card holders only for the month of June 2009. So far as the month of July 2009 is concerned, in view of the order of supension of his authorisation by the 2nd respondent, he is not permitted to distribute the essential commodities to the card holders. 6. In the light of the above and having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that no interim order or interim measure can be granted in favour of the petitioner, but however, as the 1st respondent is the competent authority, he shall be directed to hold enquiry into the matter. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry, in accordance with the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 7th August, 2009 cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16120 of 2009 (Disposed of) 7th August, 2009 cbs