IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12196 of 2009 Between: T. Ramanjaneyulu S/o. Lakshmanna Ramapuram Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderbad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram Division, Dharmavaram, Anantapur district. 3 The Tahsildar, Bathalapalli Mandal, Bathalapalli, Anantapur district. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to set aside order, dated 03.06.2009 of respondent No.3 and to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in passing orders in the appeal filed by the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and discriminatory. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Ramapuram Village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. On 03.06.2009, the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Bathalapalli, inspected the petitioner’s shop and allegedly found certain irregularities in running the shop by the petitioner. Following the same, respondent No.3 passed an order on the same day suspending the petitioner’s authorization. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 by way of an appeal wherein the said order of respondent No.3 was questioned. The grievance of the petitioner is that though a stay petition along with the appeal was filed before respondent No.2 on 08.06.2009, no order has been passed so far. At the hearing, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Mandal Revenue Inspector made corrections in the record after they were seized from the petitioner’s custody and thereafter, the impugned order of suspension was passed on the basis of such corrections. He further submitted that on 08.06.2009, he applied to respondent No.3, who is a State Information Officer, for furnishing copies of registers and coupons but so far, those documents were not furnished to him. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner along with the stay petition is pending before respondent No.2, I refrain from giving a finding on the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. Validity or otherwise of the suspension order passed by respondent No.3 is required to be adjudicated by respondent No.2. However, when the petitioner asked for supply of copies of registers and coupons, respondent No.3 is bound to supply the same in order to afford the petitioner an opportunity of demonstrating before respondent No.2 that the records were fabricated so as to book a false case against him. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to supply the copies sought for by the petitioner through his representation, dated 08.06.2009, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 shall permit the petitioner to file necessary documents in the pending appeal and shall dispose of the appeal itself within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15747 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JUNE, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni