IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20557 of 2008 Between: Ch.Purushotham Rao S/o.Kondal Rao Kodurupaka Village, Boinapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla Revenue Division, Karimnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar, Boinapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 4.7.2008 in Proceedings No. F/945/2008 passed by the 1st respondent whereby suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No. 3902, Kodurupaka Village, Boinapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District, and also the action of the 3rd respondent in not passing any orders in the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the order dt. 4.07.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Schedule Commodities Control Order, 2001 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.20557 of 2008 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent dated.04-07-2008 thereby suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry is arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension is arbitrary and illegal since the alleged variation in PDS rice is within permissible limits and the only other allegation that the petitioner failed to display the stock board being trivial does not warrant suspension of the authorization. At the outset, it is to be noted that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same is pending. Hence, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into the merits and express any opinion. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the statutory appeal pending on his ﬁle taking into consideration the above contentions raised by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.29.10.2008 Note: Issue cc In two days (B/O)