IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2191 of 2009 Between: Maggidi Sathaiah, S/o. Narayana, R/o. H.No. 1-139, Kothur Village & Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. 3 The Tahsildar, Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar 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 action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order dt.08-9-2008 in Case No. D/2114/2008 with any further enquiry on the report of the 3rd respondent in Lr.No. A/260/2008 with out considering reply of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2191 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 08.09.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner was granted with a Fair Price Shop authorization of Kothur village, Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District. While that being so, the said authorization of the petitioner was cancelled by proceedings, dated 08.09.2008, on the ground that when the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Dharmaram Mandal, on receipt of certain complaints against the petitioner, has inspected the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner, it was found that one Ramesh, an unauthorized person, was operating the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner and it was also noticed that the said person was unloading the essential commodities i.e., rice in the premises other than the address mentioned in the authorization. According to the petitioner, on the date of inspection of his shop, he had accompanied his mother for medical checkup to Karimnagar and, therefore, the said Ramesh, who is none other than his uncle, was distributing the essential commodities and the said Ramesh was not unloading the essential commodities i.e., rice in the premises other than the address mentioned in the authorization. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering his explanation and without conducting further enquiry into the matter, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar District, passed the impugned order solely relying on the report of the 3rd respondent. However, against the impugned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 09.10.2008, along with a stay petition, but the petitioner complains that neither the stay petition is disposed of nor the appeal is taken up for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that absolutely there are no grounds for cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are trivial in nature, apart from the fact that they were not proved. Learned counsel further submits that on the date when the 3rd respondent inspected the shop of the petitioner, the petitioner accompanied his mother to Hospital, as his mother was sick, and, therefore, his uncle by name Ramesh was looking after his Fair Price Shop with an intention of not causing any inconvenience to the cardholders. By taking advantage of the situation, the persons, who are inimical to the petitioner, complained to the 3rd respondent, and, therefore, the petitioner has made out a good case and the balance of convenience is in his favour. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order, dated 08.09.2008, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization was made on the ground that some unauthorized person was running the petitioner’s shop on the date of inspection, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned order, dated 08.09.2008, during the pendency of the appeal, and the petitioner shall be permitted to run his Fair Price Shop as usual. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.02.2009 v v