IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4779 of 2008 Between: Kumarapu Butchanna Dora, S/o. Late Thammanna Dora, Regati Village & Post, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4779 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 16.02.2008 of the respondent, whereby the authorization of the petitioner for running the fair price shop of Regati Village of Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram is suspended. Heard Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the record shows that on 16.02.2008 the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner by framing two charges and called upon him to submit his explanation. On the same day, the respondent issued another proceedings by which he suspended the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have filed appeal on 28.02.2008 along with stay petition before the Joint Collector, Vizianagaram district. The petitioner, however, stated in his affidavit that the incumbent Joint Collector was transferred to Ranga Reddy District and no officer was posted in the said post. The petitioner found fault with the proceedings of the respondent in hastily suspending his authorization even before time given by him for filing explanation in the show cause notice expired. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that this writ petition, as conceived, cannot be entertained, because, on his own showing, the petitioner already filed appeal before the appellate authority and he therefore cannot question the order of the respondent by way of this writ petition. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent ought not to have suspended the authorization even before receipt of explanation, I cannot accept the said plea because the show cause notice and the order of suspension operate in different fields. While the show cause notice was issued to consider imposition of substantive penalty, the order of suspension is evidently made as an interim measure. Therefore, there was no need for the respondent to wait till receipt of explanation from the petitioner under the show cause notice to pass the impugned order. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no incumbent holding the office of Joint Collector of Vizianagaram, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, stated that presently the District Revenue Officer is in-charge of the office of Joint Collector, Vizianagaram. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. The District Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram is directed to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed against order dated 16.02.2008 of the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6202 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.03.2008 ES