HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20580 of 2010 Dated: 20-08-2010 Between: V. Jayarqamulu. … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20580 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.4 of Vidapanakal village and Mandal of Anantapur District. In this writ petition, she has questioned the action of respondents in taking steps to appoint a dealer in her place. The authorisation of petitioner is suspended on certain allegations, and a show cause notice, dated 09.04.2010, is also issued in Rc.D1-CS/1005/2010, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why her authorisation should not be cancelled. The petitioner has filed her explanation to the said show cause notice, and at the same time, she has questioned the said notice in a writ petition being W.P.No.15299 of 2010. This Court, by an order, dated 5th of July 2010, passed in the said writ petition, issued directions to the respondents to complete the inquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said order, with a further direction that if the inquiry is not completed within the time prescribed, the authorisation of petitioner shall be restored. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that when matters are pending at that stage, without even completing inquiry and without restoring her authorisation, the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is taking steps to appoint a third party in place of the petitioner. As much as no further orders are passed pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 09.04.2010, there is no reason for taking steps to appoint another dealer in place of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the inquiry is not yet completed. In that view of the matter, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15299 of 2010, the authorisation of petitioner is to be restored to her, but no steps can be taken to appoint any other person in her place. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents not to take any steps to appoint any other dealer in place of the petitioner. It is further made clear that it is open for the respondents to pass appropriate further orders pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 09.04.2010, for which, the petitioner has already filed her explanation. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th August 2010 Note: Order by wire at party’s costs. (b/o) ajr