IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7103 of 2008 Between: The Lakshmi Mahila Mandali Rep. by its President - Smt.M.Jagadamba W/o.Venkata Ramana REddy, Minnamareddigari Palli, H.O. Sorakayalapeta, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor,District, 3 The Sub Collector, Madanapalle, Chittoor,District, 4 Tahsildar, K.V.Palle Mandal, Chittoor,District, .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside orders, dated 26.02.2007, 29.09.2007 and 09.02.2008 passed by respondent Nos.3, 2 and 1 respectively. This case reveals peculiar facts. On certain charges, the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended by respondent No.3 vide his proceedings, dated 26.02.2007. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order before respondent No.2, who initially stayed the operation of the said order on 18.05.2007. Later, respondent No.2 heard the appeal finally and passed order, dated 29.09.2007. In his order, respondent No.2 went into the question of validity of the initial appointment of one Smt. M.Vijayalakshmi, President of Lakshmi Mahila Mandali apart from the finding of respondent No.3 that one Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy (evidently a mistake for M.Vijaya Kumar Reddy) was running the fair price shop on behalf of the petitioner and cancelled the fair price shop dealership. Respondent No.2 also directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to attach the shop in question to the neighbouring fair price shop and appoint a new dealer after following necessary process. Respondent No.1 affirmed the said order in the revision filed by the petitioner by his order, dated 09.02.2008. These orders are assailed in this writ petition. I have heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The scope of appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 was whether on the charges framed against the petitioner, the order passed by respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner’s authorization was justified or not. If respondent No.2 was satisfied about the legality and validity of the said order, he was entitled to dismiss the appeal leaving respondent No.3 free to conduct enquiry and pass final orders. Strangely, respondent No.2 overstepped his jurisdiction in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension and went to the extent of cancelling the very dealership of the petitioner. In my considered view, this action of respondent No.2 is wholly perverse. He failed to keep in view the limited issue involved in the appeal decided by him and exercised jurisdiction which respondent No.3 ought to have exercised after holding proper enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. Respondent No.1 also committed serious error in not setting aside the order of respondent No.2 in the revision. For the above-mentioned reasons, orders, dated 29.09.2007 and 09.02.2008 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively are quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to initiate and complete the enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd APRIL, 2008 Note: furnish c.c. in one week. B/o kvni