IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15193 of 2008 Between: K.Kantha Rao S/o.Ramaiah H.No.75/51, Kallur Main Road Kurnool,Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector Kurnool,Kurnool District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool,Kurnool District 3 The District Supply Officer Kurnool,Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the1st respondent in not setting aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide RC B 1772/2007 dt.17-12-2007 cancelling the petitioner's authorization and issuing directions to conduct fresh enquiry as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to restore the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop Pending new enquiry and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15193 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner herein was appointed as temporary dealer of fair price shop No.129 of Kurnool city. The 2 nd respondent-the RDO, Kurnool by order dated.17-12-2007 cancelled the temporary appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he had indulged in clandestine business depriving the legitimate rights of the cardholders to get the essential commodities. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. Keeping in view the criminal charges found subsequently against the petitioner, the said appeal was disposed of by an order 28-02-2008 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry and till then status quo to be maintained. The said order passed by the 1st respondent dated.28-02-2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that having found that the 2nd respondent failed to issue an additional notice to the petitioner with regard to the coupons seized by the District Supply Oﬃcer, the 1st respondent ought to have restored the petitioner’s appointment, instead of directing fresh enquiry. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the nature of the charges against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent was justiﬁed in directing fresh enquiry. Hence the impugned order does not warrant interference. It is also pertinent to note that pursuant to the impugned order, a fresh show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01-04- 2008. In the circumstances without going into merits of the case I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry following due process of law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs. __________ G.ROHINI,J 26th September,2008 Note: Issue CC in one Week (B/O) *TSNR