IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19630 of 2008 Between: B.Jayarami Reddy S/o. Pedda Venkat Reddy Gajarampalli(V) Padmidi(M) Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The District Collector Anantapur District 3 The Joint Collector Anantapur District 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer Anantapur 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3&4 in proceedings No.D1-CS/1696/2007 dt 4-10-2007 and appeal No.K4/ATP/570/2007 is illegal and violative of Art 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.ACHUTA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19630 of 2008 O R D E R: Petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop No.1 of Gajarampalli Village, Pamidi Mandal, Anantapur District. His authorization was suspended pending enquiry by the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 04-10-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. Alleging that neither the 3rd respondent considered his appeal nor the 4th respondent proceeded with the enquiry, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 3 and 4 is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies under instructions submitted that after ﬁling of this writ petition, the 3rd respondent disposed of the appeal on 12-09-2008 upholding the order of suspension pending enquiry, however, directing the 4 th respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of three weeks. Having regard to the subsequent events, no further enquiry is necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders following due process of law within a period of 3 weeks in terms of the order of the 3rd respondent without fail. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date:16-09-2008 KLP