IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11892 of 2009 Between: M.Sridevi W/o.Peda Anjaneyulu R/o.Nadigadda,Vinukonda,Mandal Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Joint Collector,(Civil Supplies ), Guntur District Guntur 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Narasaropet Division Guntur District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in continuing the petitioner, who is the fair price shop dealer of Nadigadda Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, under suspension for 4½ years without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended on 08.10.2004 on the ground that certain irregularities were allegedly committed by her. As the enquiry into the alleged irregularities is not completed and a final order has not been passed so far, the petitioner filed this writ petition. On 23.06.2009, as this Court prima facie found that the inordinate delay in completion of enquiry and passing order is wholly unreasonable, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to file their affidavits explaining the reasons for non-completion of enquiry. It was also directed that if they failed to file those affidavits, both of them should be present in person. As neither affidavits were filed nor respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present, this Court passed order on 07.07.2009 directing reinstatement of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer forthwith and further directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to be personally present on 14.07.2009 to explain their inaction. Today, Sri Gaurav Uppal, the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) of Guntur District and Dr. K.Srinivasulu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, are present in person. They filed separate counter affidavits. Respondent No.2 - Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Guntur, in his counter affidavit inter alia stated that the action was initiated by respondent No.3 and as the petitioner did not approach the answering respondent for appropriate action, he was not aware of the pendency of enquiry. He, however, stated that he came to know that the petitioner has not responded to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.3 stated that though a show cause notice was issued on 15.01.2005 with 7 charges, the petitioner has not submitted her explanation in reply thereto. He sought to throw the blame on the petitioner for the pendency of the enquiry on the ground that she failed to submit her explanation. At the hearing, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any show cause notice as claimed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Irrespective of whether the show cause notice was issued by respondent No.3 and the petitioner failed to submit her explanation, there is no justification for respondent No.3 to keep the enquiry pending. Even if the petitioner failed to submit her explanation that does not offer reasonable excuse for respondent No.3 not to complete the enquiry for over five (5) years. He ought to have proceeded with the enquiry, if the petitioner failed to submit her explanation. Though the case is not pending before respondent No.2, as an administrative head, responsibility lies on him to undertake a periodical review of the functioning of his subordinate officers and ensure that the pending cases are disposed of with promptitude and punctuality. Both the respondents, who are present, stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner was restored and they assured that the enquiry will be completed and appropriate orders will be passed within a reasonable time. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate order, within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. Within one week, respondent No.3 shall serve a copy of the show cause notice along with relevant material. The petitioner is permitted to file her explanation, within a period of two weeks thereafter. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15321 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th JULY, 2009. kvni