IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25140 of 2008 Between: R. Narasimhulu S/o. Siddappa R/o. Rachinepalli Village, Tanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Collector, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 2 The Tahsildar, Thanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. .....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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the Order of the 1st Respondent passed in Rc NO. 1650/2008C dt. 2-9-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25140 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is the authorized dealer of fair price shop of Rachinepalli, Guntur District, Tanakal Mandal, Anantapur District. The 1st respondent herein, by order, dated 2.9.2008, while calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why his authorization should not be cancelled on the ground of alleged irregularities in distribution of commodities, suspended the authorization pending such enquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter he also participated in the enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent on 27.10.2008. However, no order has been passed by the 1st respondent so far. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the order of the 1st respondent dated 2.9.2008 suspending the authorization of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that the petitioner is physically handicapped with 90% deformity of legs, contended that all the allegations made against the petitioner are incorrect and baseless and the suspension of the authorization of the petitioner is unwarranted and unjustified. Since the 1st respondent has already concluded the enquiry after hearing the petitioner on 27.10.2008, it is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner. However, I ﬁnd force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, having initiated the enquiry the 1st respondent – appointing authority – is expected to complete the same within a reasonable time. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the enquiry already concluded on 27.10.2008 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If no such order is passed within the time speciﬁed above, the authorization of the petitioner shall stand restored. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 15.11.2008 gbs Note:- CC by 17.11.2008 (B/O) gbs