IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15458 of 2008 Between: Ram Sanjeevaiah, S/o. Late Ramnarasaiah, R/o. Venugumatla Village, Gorlapalli Village, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagitial, Karimnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar, Gollapally Mandal, 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 a writ, order or direction more one in the nature o fWrit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in suspending the petitoner authorization vide its Proceedings No. G/605/2008 dated 10-4- 2008 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to restore his authorization No. G/528/2007 valid upto 31-3- 2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner’s authorization was suspended by the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.4.2008, on the basis of a report by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner has sold PDS rice for a rate higher than the stipulated rate; has not maintained the stock registers properly; and was indulging in other irregularities. On 10.4.2008 itself, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice, setting out the allegations against the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation thereto and proposing cancellation if the charges are established. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.4.2008. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the order of suspension. He challenges the order on the ground that it is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. On a perusal of the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry of the petitioner’s authorization for the fair price shop No.2613 of Venugumatla Village, Gollapalli Mandal, Karimnagar, no perversity or arbitrariness is discernible ex facie. Whether the petitioner has committed the irregularities alleged will have to be determined finally by the 1st respondent. In the circumstances and on the analysis above, no interference with the order of suspension is called for. The relief in specie in the writ petition is accordingly rejected. The 1st respondent is directed to expeditiously conclude the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and pass final orders, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 18.7.2008 cvm