IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25543 of 2010 Between: Md. Azeem ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector/Civil Supply, Medak District at Sangareddy & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25543 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 18.09.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. On a report filed by the District Supply Officer, Medak, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of his fair price shop authorization in respect of Shop No.14 of Dayara street, Medak. A show cause notice was issued on the following allegations. “ 1 . The dealer is not maintaining the scheduled timing prescribed by the Government not issuing PDS item properly. 2 . Selling the PDS item at higher prices than the rates prescribed by the Government. 3. The shop remained closed most of the days in the month. 4 . The dealer never used to respond properly in giving information about the arrival of the stocks.” The show cause notice was stated to have been served on the petitioner on 06.09.2010. On the ground that the explanation of the petitioner has not been received, respondent No.2 has deemed that the former has no explanation to offer and has suspended his authorization by requesting the Tahsildar to make alternative arrangement. This Court, by order dated 08.10.2010, admitted the Writ Petition and suspended the impugned order. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alai stated that the impugned order is in the nature of interim suspension, that the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within three days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice and that the said three days had expired on 08.09.2010. It is further averred that respondent No.2 could not take up the case till 18.09.2010 and that as no explanation was received till 08.09.2010, it was deemed that the petitioner has not filed his explanation, but, by misguiding the office staff, the petitioner has furnished the explanation through the office inward section of respondent No.2 on 17.09.2010, which fact was stated to have come to the knowledge of respondent No.2 on 18.09.2010. Respondent No.2 further stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not proper and bereft of reasons. From the facts noted above, this Court is of the opinion that the procedure followed by respondent No.2 is rather strange. When an explanation is called for on certain charges framed by him, respondent No.2 is expected to pass a final order instead of keeping the enquiry pending and placing the petitioner under suspension. Instead of following this normal practice, respondent No.2 has passed an order of suspension. Moreover, respondent No.2 did not exhibit a reasonable approach in allowing a mere three days’ time for the petitioner to file his explanation and even the explanation filed by the petitioner was not considered on the ground that he was not aware of the petitioner filing such an explanation. The above facts convince this Court to hold that the impugned order suffers from manifest arbitrariness and the same is accordingly set aside. Inasmuch as the enquiry is stated to be pending before respondent No.2, he is directed to complete the same, after considering the explanation filed by the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.32630 of 2010 and WVMP.No.5518 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.12.2010 ES