IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26810 of 2008 Between: Yedla Nageswara Rao S/o.Sri Varaiah Resident of Lingagudem village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna district 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer/The Sub Collector Vijayawada, Krishna 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in handing over the stocks available at the Fair price shop of the petitioner and appointing an in-charge dealer in the absence of any notice or order as ultra vires, high handed, illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice; direct the 2nd respondent to expeditiously dispose of the enquiry pending against the petitioner in Rc.No.A7/2251/2008 dated 15.11.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SIVA S.LANKA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26810 OF 2008 ORDER: It appears, the authorization of the petitioner as dealer of fair price shop of Lingagudem Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, has been suspended by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector of Vijayawada, vide proceedings dated 15.11.2008, pending enquiry into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and found at the time of inspection of the said shop by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Nandigama, and the 1st respondent- Tahsildar, Penuganchiprolu, has been permitted to arrange an in-charge dealer for the said fair price shop. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was issued to him before suspending his authorization, that the cost of the commodities handed over by him to the in-charge dealer arranged by the 1st respondent has not been refunded to him and that there is no progress in the enquiry. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. On perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that no grounds are made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is suffice to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector of Vijayawada, Krishna District, to complete the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 10th December, 2008 IBL