IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16607 of 2008 Between: Smt.Arogyamma W/o.Venkatnarayana Reddy R/o.D.No.3-8,Mucchukuntapallivillage Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur Anantapur District .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent innot concluding the enquiry proceedings relating to the suspension of petitioner F.P.Shop authorization of Mucchukuntapalli village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District in spite of speciﬁc directions of Joint Collector,Anantapur is illegal,arbitrary,violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to conclude the enquiry proceedings relating to the suspension of petitioner F.P.Shop authorization of Mucchukuntapalli village,Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 16607 of 2008 Oral Order: The substantive grievance as urged at the admission hearing of this writ petition is that the respondent has not ﬁnalized the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner, a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Mucchukuntapalli village, Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District, on account of which her authorization has been suspended by the orders of the respondent dated 20-08-2007. On instructions, the learned government Pleader for Civil Supplies has reported that by proceedings in D.Dis.D1-CS/1327/2007 dated 29-07-2008, the respondent has passed ﬁnal orders in the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and on consideration of the material on record and in view of the conclusion that the charges are not serious in nature and do not warrant deterrent punishment, has dropped further action while imposing a ﬁne of Rs.500-00 and administering a warning that the petitioner be careful in future. In the light of the order dated 29-07-2008 of the 2nd respondent, a copy of which has also been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. The petitioner is however at liberty to pursue such remedies as desired against the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 29-07- 2008. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 31-07-2008 pvks