IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA WRIT PETITION NO : 6771 of 2005 Between: Smt. Perni Prasanna, w/o Nagesh, R/o Idupulapadu Village, Inkollu Mandalam, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Inkollu, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasham District, the 1st Respondent herein issued in R.C.C. /757/2004 dated 5-3-2005 thereby rejecting my representation by holding that there is no political pressure and there is no force in tendering resignation letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Inkollu by me as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The endorsement passed by the first respondent dated 05-03-2005 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was a fair price shop dealer and resignation was offered by her on some personal reasons and the same was accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed writ petition No.15720 of 2004 challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.1) with a further request not to give effect to the alleged resignation letter dated 28-06-2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said orders in W.P.No. 15720 of 2004, the petitioner approached the first respondent and the matter was heard and considered afresh and eventually the representation of the petitioner was dismissed with the following specific reasons: Firstly, that the statement was recorded by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Inkollu, on 17-06-2004 wherein the petitioner has categorically accepted that she has tendered her resignation on her own volition and in consequence of which the said resignation was accepted on 06-07-2004 by the competent authority. Secondly, the Revenue Divisional Officer found that had the resignation was obtained forcibly without willingness, she might have represented her grievance to the higher authorities immediately but that did not happen. Instead of making a representation to the higher authorities immediately, the writ petition was filed before the High Court in the month of September, 2004 i.e., after a considerable lapse of time of three months from the date of alleged resignation. Thirdly, the petitioner could not produce any additional evidence in support of her claim even at the time of personal hearing. Fourthly, having regard to the above circumstances, it was found that there was no political pressure on the petitioner in her tendering resignation of dealership. In my considered view, the impugned proceedings do not call for any interference by this court. The reasons given in the impugned proceedings are valid and cogent. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _____________ 30-03-2005 Prv To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Inkollu, Prakasam District. 3 Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.