IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6829 of 2009 Between: K.B.Pathi S/o. Ramaiah E.No.342327 Warangal-II Depot, R/o. Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Depot Manager, Warangal-II Depot, Waranal. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 17-03-2009 passed by respondent No.2. After hearing Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner did not make out any case to interfere with the impugned order, which is in the nature of suspension, pending enquiry. A perusal of the impugned order shows that when the bus, which was driven by the petitioner, was checked on 08-03-2009 at 10.41 hours, it was detected that the petitioner allegedly collected fare of Rs.70/- each from two passengers and issued only one ticket of Rs.70/- denomination, instead of issuing two tickets, and that he updated the ‘TIM’ machine against Stage No.6, without completing ticket issues. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon this Court that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity, I am afraid, this Court cannot go into this dispute at this stage. The limited grounds, on which this Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the matters of suspension, pending enquiry, are either mala fides or lack of jurisdiction. Either of these grounds have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry at an early date. As the nature of allegation, in respect of which enquiry is pending, does not consume substantial time, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.8937 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st April, 2009 vrn