IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14222 of 2008 Between: K.Upendar Rao S/o.Veeraiah Residentof Burugupad (Village) Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Dornakal Mandal, Dornakal, Warangal District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 3 The Joint Collector, Warangal District, Warangal. .....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 call for records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent bearing No.C/917/2007, dt. 14.6.2007 and set aside the same by declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner's authorisation under suspension for more than one year is in violation of the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India by issuing a Writ, or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.NARASIMHA RAO 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 and as mutually pleaded, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The substantive grievance of the petitioner is that despite his authorization as a Fair Price shop dealer of Burugupad Village, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District, having been suspended by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.6.2007 bearing reference No. C/917/2007 on what is contended to be vague allegations, the respondents have not seen it fit to either initiate or conclude the enquiry into the allegations which led to the order of suspension. As is apparent from the order of suspension pending enquiry dated 14.6.2007, the spectrum of allegations are within a narrow compass and should not consume considerable time for the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry and to pass a final order (in such enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner which led to the order of suspension dated 14.6.2007), expeditiously and in any event 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. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 17.7.2008 cvm