THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9690 of 2011 Date: 11.04.2011 Between: Bhukya Mangilal … Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Warangal, Warangal District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9690 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal District, in keeping the authorization of the petitioner to run a Fair Price Shop under suspension by proceedings Rc.No.C/994/2009, dated 3.12.2009 and also to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal, in not disposing of the appeal No.17 of 2009 said to have been filed by the petitioner against the said order of suspension dated 3.12.2009, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Somulathanda, H/o. Yellampet, Marripeda Mandal, Warangal District. On an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) and the Revenue Inspector, Marripeda Mandal, it was revealed that the petitioner was involved in clandestine and black-marketing of the commodities meant for distribution to the general public. Based on the said enquiry report, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer suspended the authorization of the petitioner by proceedings Rc.No.C/994/2009, dated 3.12.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal No.17 of 2009 before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal. The said appellate authority, while entertaining the said appeal on file, declined to grant interim order by order dated 23.12.2009. Complaining that eversince the date of dismissal of the interlocutory application, the appellate authority has not taken any action to dispose of the said appeal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere disposal of the appeal would not be of any benefit to the petitioner, as he would have to face another round of litigation. The learned counsel, therefore, would submit that the petitioner would be withdrawing the appeal if the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, is directed to complete the substantive enquiry into the matter and finalise the same within a reasonable time, which would mitigate the hardship of the petitioner, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal. 5. In view of the said submission, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case whether there was any justification for the 1st respondent-appellate authority in keeping the appeal pending for such a long time. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (i) The petitioner shall withdraw the appeal No.17 of 2009, pending on the file of the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (ii) on such withdrawal of the appeal, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad shall complete the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 11.04.2011. Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9690 of 2011 11.04.2011 (Msr)