IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25167 of 2008 Between: K. Rajashekar, S/o. Bhommaiah, R/o. 4-6-155, Indira Colony, Sangareddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector-Cum-Program Coordinator, DRDA (District Rural Development Agency), Dubbak Mandal, Medak District. 2 The Project Director, Coordinator,DRDA (District Rural Development Agency), Dubbak Mandal, Medak District. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRITOF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Project Director (DRDA) the 2nd Respondent herein issuing the proceedings No. B3/Estt/2008 dated 25-09-08 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law without the authority of law and being in violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, 16, 19, 21 and also in violation the guarantee under Article 300 A of Constitution of India and issue the Consequential direction not to give the effect the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the suspension orders dated 25.9.2008 passed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, the 2 nd respondent herein, the present writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner, who is working as a community coordinator in DRDA, Dubbak Mandal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and perused the record. The impugned suspension order is passed by the 2nd respondent stating that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamareddy P.S. vide report dated 15.9.2008 reported that the petitioner is involved in ATM theft case and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.8.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged oﬀence has nothing to do with the nature of duties the petitioner is supposed to discharge and that, in fact, he was falsely implicated in the said oﬀence and that even the FIR does not indicate that he was involved in the said theft case. is also stated that he made a representation on 31.10.2008 to the Project Director, DRDA bringing to his notice all the relevant facts and requested him to revoke the suspension orders but so far no action has been taken on the said representation. The learned Government Pleader submits that since the petitioner’s representation dated 31.10.2008 is already pending with the 2nd respondent, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the 2 nd respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of the same, for which course of action the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Project Director, DRDA to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 31.10.2008, seeking revocation of the impugned suspension orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.17.11.2008 msv