IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8751 of 2008 Between: Pokuri China Chennamma W/o. Musalaiah Varadhinenipalem Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Joint Collector ( CS ), Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The REvenue Divisional Officer, Kandukuru,Prakasam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.V.M.KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 14.03.2008 passed by respondent No.1 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Vardhinenipalem Village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District. The authorization of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop of Vardhinenipalem Village was suspended by proceedings, dated 20.09.2006 of respondent No.3 on three charges. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 along with the stay application. By a non-speaking order, dated 24.03.2007, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal and the stay application. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, who by his order, dated 14.03.2008, which is equally non-speaking, dismissed the revision petition. I have heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. The main charge, on which the petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry, was charge No.2, which is to the effect that the mother-in-law of the petitioner has got elected as Sarpanch of Vardhinenipalem Gram Panchayat. In the nature of the charge, I am of the view that there is no warrant for suspending the authorization without holding enquiry into the same. The petitioner offered her explanation stating that though her mother-in-law got elected as Sarpanch, they are not living together and they got separated long time back. None of the respondents has taken the said explanation into consideration, while suspending the petitioner’s authorization. It is admitted that all through the proceedings before the respondents, the petitioner is continued as fair price shop dealer. Since the enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner is pending before respondent No.3, interests of justice would be met if respondent No.3 is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer of Vardhinenipalem Village, she shall be continued as dealer, pending enquiry and till passing of final order by respondent No.3. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.11604 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st APRIL, 2008 kvni