IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 18116 of 2009 Between: B.Vijaya Lakshmi, . .Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Kurnool District and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.18116 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the authorization of the petitioner under suspension for an indefinite period from 09.01.2008 without completing the enquiry within reasonable period as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 09.01.2008 in Rc.B31/2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, wherein the authorization of the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner is the authorized dealer of fair price shop of Dinnadevarapadu village, Kurnool division and Mandal, Kurnool District. Her authorization was suspended by the 2nd respondent on 09.01.2008 vide Rc.B31/2008. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal was disposed of by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector on 13.03.2008 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to cause an enquiry and pass necessary orders in accordance with law at the earliest. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice was issued on 14.04.2008, for which the petitioner offered her explanation and thereafter nothing had taken place. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. When once show cause notice was issued and an explanation was also offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent should have conducted an enquiry at the earliest as directed by the 1st respondent i.e., the appellate authority. Keeping the authorization under suspension, so long, without any further orders, in my considered view is bad. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, 2nd respondent herein, to complete the enquiry, which is pending against the petitioner's authorization, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law and communicate the said order to the petitioner. If, for any reason, the enquiry is not completed within the period as stipulated above, the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored and she shall be allowed to distribute the schedule commodities to the cardholders as usual. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) August 28, 2009 KSH