IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27814 of 2010 Between: D. Jaya Prakash ..... Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. K. Hema Latha Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27814 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 16.10.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s authorization in respect of shop No.8 of Kondepalli Village, H/o. Echavatipalli Village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. After filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed an application i.e., WPMP.No.36484 of 2010 for an amendment in order to question show cause notice dated 04.10.2010 also. By a separate order, this Court allowed the said application. A perusal of the record shows that on 04.10.2010, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner’s authorization shall not be cancelled. However, simultaneously respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization on as many as five charges. Interestingly, on 16.10.2010 a fresh show cause notice was issued with one charge and a further order of suspension was also issued by a separate order on the same day. When this Court pointed out this anomaly, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that the show cause notice and the order of suspension dated 16.10.2010 were issued by mistake of fact and that they stand withdrawn. In view of this clarification, the show cause notice and suspension order dated 04.10.2010 alone stand. Ms. K. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the allegations on which the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization has been made do not warrant the extreme action of suspension of the authorization. On a careful consideration of the allegations, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that at least allegation Nos.4 and 5 are not serious enough to warrant suspension. The petitioner is entitled to submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 04.10.2010. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the explanation so submitted by the petitioner, complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate final order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.35206 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.12.2010 ES