IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8690 of 2009 Between: P.Ashok S/o. Venkatesh, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Division, Adilabad District. 2 The Tahsildar, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District. 3 The Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.C/646/2009, dated 16-03-2009 of respondent No.1 whereby he suspended the authorization of the petitioner in respect of Fair Price Shop No.36 of Dahegaon Village, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District. Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur, Warangal, intercepted an Auto Trolley, which was found carrying in it twenty bags of Redgram Dal and four bags of sugar from Bhainsa Mandal to Nirmal Town. The enquiries, allegedly, revealed that the said stocks pertain to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and that the same were being transported to Nirmal for sale at higher rates. Crime No.60 of 2008 was registered and on intimation by respondent No.3-Collector (CS) Adilabad, respondent No.1 suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending further orders. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contents of the impugned order show that respondent No.1 had merely acted at the instance of respondent No.3 without independent application of mind and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. I have not felt persuaded to accept this contention because the facts, which came to the knowledge of respondent No.3, were informed to respondent No.1, who, admittedly, is the licensing and disciplinary authority. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong in respondent No.1 acting on the information furnished by respondent No.3 on the alleged attempt of the petitioner to sell the essential commodities in black market. Therefore, the impugned order, by which the petitioner is merely suspended pending enquiry, does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting this Court’s interference at this stage. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.11383 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 2nd June, 2008 LUR