IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO: 11517 of 2008 Between: Smt. P. Manjula W/o. Shravan Kumar R/o. 5-241, Krishnanagar colony, Meerpet, Moulali, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, Ranga Reddy. 2 Asst. Supply Officer Circle II, Ranga Reddy District at Uppal. .....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 in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent Proceedings No.C/2221/2008 dated 22.05.2008 as null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11517 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed against the order dated 22-5-2008 in proceedings No.C/2221/2008 on the file of first respondent. Under the impugned proceedings, the authorisation of the petitioner to run the fair price shop No.325, Mangapuram Colony, Moulali, Ranga Reddy district, was suspended pending enquiry into certain allegations made against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the only allegation made against him is shortage of 1-68 quintals of rice and the alleged shortage is within the permissible limit. Even otherwise, the charge is trivial in nature and the circumstances do not require suspension of the authorisation held by the petitioner. 2. It appears there is only one allegation made against the petitioner that there was shortage of broken rice. This is a matter of record and no further evidence need to be gathered nor there is any possibility of manipulation of record by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no necessity to suspend the authorisation of the petitioner, pending detailed enquiry into the matter. 3. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent authority is at liberty to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner and take appropriate action, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ C.V. RAMULU, J. Note: Wire operative portion at party’s cost. (b/o) bsc .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}