THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26210 of 2009 DATE:02.12.2009 Between: Boddu Sandhya Rani ... Petitioner and The Joint Collector, East Godavari District and others ... Respondent For the petitioner: Sri K. Venkatesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26210 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, she is a dealer in respect of fair price shop No.25 of Arikirevula Village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari District, and has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint. While so, on 04.11.2009 the 4th respondent inspected her shop and found that there is variation in the stock of PDS rice. Subsequently, the respondents stopped supplying the essential commodities to her fair price shop, without suspending or cancelling her authorisation. Questioning the same, she approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24989 of 2009 and this Court disposed of the same, by an order dated 18.11.2009, directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities so long as her authorisation is in force. In order to overcome the order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Ref.E/5766/09 suspending her authorisation until further orders, and also issued a notice calling upon her to show cause as to why her authorisation should not be cancelled and submit explanation within seven days, by putting an ante-date i.e.13.11.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned in this writ petition is silent with regard to enquiry and the 2nd respondent has passed the order and also issued the show cause notice on the same day. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended until further orders. May be it is true that the 2nd respondent did not use the words "pending enquiry". But, when it is specified that the order of suspension is until further orders, it is implied that it is only pending enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner. Further, it is clear that a show cause notice has already been issued calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation, for which she has already offered a detailed explanation. Further, the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Joint Collector, East Godavari District. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 4. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioner expressed her readiness to proceed with the enquiry, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to complete the enquiry, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of his failure to complete the enquiry within the stipulated time, the authorisation of the petitioner shall be restored and the essential commodities shall be supplied to her fair price shop so as to enable her to distribute the same to the cardholders, pending enquiry. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 2nd December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (b/o) cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26210 of 2009 (Disposed of) 2nd December, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. by three days. (b/o) CBS