IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.2564 of 2010 Between: Atluri Hanimi Reddy ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Guntur District and three others ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken notice on 09-02-2010. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 12-01-2010 in A.C.D. Dis.No.40/2009-S7 on the file of the second respondent – the Joint Collector, Guntur district, and the order passed by the third respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District in Rc.No.2753/2009-B, dated 22-10-2009 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute essential commodities in Regulagadda Village, Machavaram Mandal, Guntur District and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. Specific stand had been taken that the impugned order dated 12-01-2010 was made by the second respondent – the Joint Collector without issuing notice of hearing. Further it is specifically stated that the observation by the Joint Collector is that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to appear before the Joint Collector on 12-01-2010 in person and the said observation is incorrect. Several further facts also had been narrated. 5. While dismissing the appeal the second respondent recorded reasons as hereunder: “However, a reasonable opportunity has been given to the appellant by directing him to appear before this court on 12-01-2010 in person or through advocate for filing further documentary evidence if any. But, the appellant has not utilized the opportunity given to him and he has not appeared before this court in person or through his advocate and also not submitted any documentary evidence for the grounds of his appeal petition.” It is no doubt true that as against this order a revision lies to the Collector and District Magistrate. 6. In as much as the enquiry to be completed by the third respondent instead of remitting the matter to the second respondent, it would be just and proper to direct the third respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District to complete the enquiry within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in the light of the nature of allegation, let the petitioner be permitted to distribute the commodities till appropriate decision is taken in this regard by the third respondent. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 11, 2010. Note: Furnish CC by 18-02-2010. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.2564 of 2010 February 11, 2010 Note: Furnish CC by 18-02-2010. B/o.PN