IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10385 of 2008 Between: K. Buchanna Dora S/olate Thammanna dora Regati village, & Po,. Garidividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagram Division, Vizianagaram. 2 The Joint Collector, Vizianagram District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 09-04-2008, of respondent No.2, whereby he confirmed order dated 16-02-2008 of respondent No.1, placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry. Heard Sri A.Srinivasa Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. By proceedings dated 16-02-2008, the petitioner’s authorization in respect of fair price shop of Regati Village, Garidividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, was suspended by respondent No.2 on two allegations viz., that he has been running the fair price shop binami and; that he has been selling essential commodities at higher prices than the authorized prices. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2. On the ground that the appellate authority has not disposed of the stay application filed along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4779 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 07-03-2008. Consequent to the dismissal of the said Writ Petition, respondent No.2 has taken up the appeal and after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the same. In her order, respondent No.2 considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by respondent No.1 in suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued with considerable force that both the allegations made against the petitioner are ex facie incorrect and there was no warrant for suspending his authorization. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and I have not felt persuaded to accept the same. Respondent No.2 exercised his power of suspending the petitioner’s authorization, which is ancillary to the main power of imposing substantive punishment after holding enquiry. Whether the allegations made against the petitioner are sustainable or not is required to be examined and decided in the enquiry. If the allegations on their face value are taken into consideration, there cannot be any doubt that they are serious in nature, and in the face of such allegations, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has abused his power by suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. Respondent No.2, in my view, rightly declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by respondent No.1, since the enquiry into the allegations is pending. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 warranting interference of this Court at this stage. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Respondent No.l is directed to complete the enquiry, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order, which are meant only for the disposal of this Writ Petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.13604 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 2nd May 2008 lur