IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18516 of 2008 Between: Vuppala Suresh S/o. Krishnaiah R/o. Cherukumudi Village, Manubolu Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore 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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the order of the Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, the 1st respondent herein, in Rc.E.758/2008 dated 18-8-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Cherukumudi Village, Manubolu Mandal by supplying all essentail commodities according to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.8.2008, whereby and whereunder the 1st respondent varied the order of interim stay granted on 18.7.2008. The petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 10.6.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent under Clause 20 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008. By an order dated 18.7.2008 containing no reasons whatsoever, the 1st respondent-appellate authority granted stay of operation of the order dated 10.6.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent. The ﬁrst respondent passed the impugned order dated 18.8.2008, ﬁnally disposing of the appeal and vacating the interim stay granted earlier on 18.7.2008, while directing the 2nd respondent to ﬁnalize the substantive proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the (impugned) order dated 18.8.2008. The appeal to the 1st respondent from the order of suspension passed by the 2nd respondent was in respect of an order of suspension pending enquiry. In the circumstances, a detailed consideration of the merits of the issue; whether the petitioner had indulged in the irregularities alleged ought not to be gone into as that would foreclose a regular consideration of the merits in the substantive proceedings. A best judgment and prima facie analysis is all that is required. Having regard to the satisfaction by the 1st respondent-appellate authority that the allegations against the petitioner are serious namely, variation in the stocks of the essential commodities of rice and kerosene oil, the 1st respondent exercised discretion not to interfere with the ad- interim order of suspension of authorization. This is not an exercise of discretion that calls for interference in the judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution. No patent perversity is discernible. In any event, the 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to conclude the substantive proceedings expeditiously and within a reasonably short time fixed. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J DATE: 26.08.2008 CVM