IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 21721 of 2009 Between: Hare Ram, S/o Gangarajam, 26 years, Occ: Fair Price shop dealer, sop No.2901. Medipally village & Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial Division, Jagtial, Karimnagar District and another. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRI PETITION No.21721 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing a show cause notice in proceedings No.G/1386/2009 dated 27.08.2009 and suspending the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No.2901 situated at Medipally village, Karimnagar District temporarily by issuing the orders, on the very same day, in proceedings No.G/1386/2009 dated 27.08.2009 and also not passing any order in pursuance of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 09.09.2009, even though the petitioner has not contravened any of the clauses of the Public Distribution System Control Order, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to continue the supply of the essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he is a dealer of fair price shop No.2901 of Medipally village, Karimnagar District. On 22.08.2009 the 2nd respondent inspected the shop of the petitioner and seized the entire stock i.e., 3.43 quintals of rice and 200 liters of kerosene on the ground that there is variation in the stock when compared with the ground stock and balance register. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice on 27.08.2009 calling for explanation of the petitioner and also issued orders, on the very same day, suspending the authorization of the petitioner temporarily. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 09.09.2009, but the 1st respondent has not passed any order so far considering his explanation. Heard both sides. In my considered view, this writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has right of appeal against the impugned order. But, however, this Court, without directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any reason, no order is passed within the stipulated time, the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored and the essential commodities shall be supplied to the fair price shop of the petitioner enabling him to supply the same to the cardholders during the pendency of the said enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 09-10-2009 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (Bo) Gsn.