IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA WRIT PETITION NO : 3219 of 2005 Between: B.Sikhandar Bash, S/o.B.Fakruddin, R/o.Guvvalaguttapalli, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Ananthapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the enquiry and passing of final orders as directed by the 1st respondent in D.Dis No.K4/982/2004, dt.12.1.2005, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders of the proceedings of the 2dn respondent in Rc.No.1128/2004, dt.14.7.2004, pending enquiry before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2 . This Writ Petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the enquiry and passing of final orders, as directed by the 1st respondent in D.Dis.No.K4/982/2004, dated 12-01-2005, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the orders of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.1128/2004, dated 14-07-2004, pending enquiry before the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that certain charges have been levelled against the petitioner on the ground that there are deviations of the conditions of the Control Order and the same had been enquired into initially, by the competent authority, i.e. 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer herein, and the licence was suspended pending enquiry. The same had been challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, having gone into the matter, remanded the same to the competent authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer again to dispose of the matter afresh. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by his own order or reasoning, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ________________ (D.S.R.VARMA,J) 7th March, 2005. Tsy To 1 The Joint Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Ananthapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi, Ananthapur District. 4 Two CCs to the GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T.) 5 Two CD copies