IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 18175 of 2009 Between: Ch.Srinivas, . .Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Warangal and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.18175 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court and filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.9 of 2009 dated 20.08.2009 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders passed in proceedings No.E/2271/2009, dated 18.07.2009. 2) The petitioner is an authorized fair price shop dealer of shop No.22 of Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. On 14.07.2009 the vigilance authorities inspected the shop of the petitioner and on 18.07.2009 the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, suspended the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings No.E/2271/2009 on the ground that the petitioner is not distributing the rice meant for public distribution. As against the said order, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent-appellate authority and filed an appeal No.9 of 2009 on 31.07.2008 and the 1st respondent while entertaining the appeal passed an order dated 20.08.2009 refusing to suspend the impugned order dated 18.07.2009. The said order dated 20.08.2009 is under challenge. 3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4) It is true that the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looking at the order of the suspension, this Court is of the view that, prima facie, the said allegation appears to be trivial. Hence, instead of directing the 1st respondent-appellate authority i.e., the Joint Collector, to look into the matter, it is desirable to direct the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry at the earliest and pass necessary orders. 5) In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to complete the enquiry by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein, at the earliest preferably within a period of Six weeks. If, for any reason, the enquiry is not completed within the period as stipulated above, the authorisation of the petitioner shall be restored during the pendency of the said enquiry by the 2nd respondent. 6) Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) August 28, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. by 01.09.2009 (B/O) KSH