IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25644 of 2008 Between: Smt. M. Leelavathi, W/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No. 22, Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring the suspension cum show cause Notice dt. 16-6-2008 in Rc.No. 1060/08/C on the file of the 2nd respondent and the order dated 16.10.2008 in D.Dis.No. K4/PKD/1283/2008 on the file of the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, award costs and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25644 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the suspension-cum-show cause notice, dated 16.06.2008, in Rc.No.1060/08/C, issued by the 2nd respondent, and the order, dated 16.10.2008, in D.Dis.No.K4/PKD/1283/2008, passed by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner, who was the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kutagulla Village, Kadiri Mandal of Ananthapur District, was served with a suspension-cum-show cause notice bearing Rc.No.1060/08/C, dated 16.06.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, whereby her authorization was suspended pending enquiry into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by her, and she was asked to submit explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why her dealership should not be cancelled for such irregularities. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent- Joint Collector, Ananthapur District. The 1st respondent, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the charges are grave in nature and therefore he is not inclined to set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent at that stage, but however, directed the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry, by taking into consideration the contentions of the counsel for the appellant properly, and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The appeal was accordingly disposed of on 16.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent, while directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry within four weeks, ought to have suspended the suspension-cum-show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent till the conclusion of the enquiry. He further contends that, in fact, no irregularities were committed by the petitioner and that the charges framed against the petitioner are trivial in nature, but not grave as held by the 1st respondent, and in any event they do not warrant suspension of the authorization held by the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. The 1st respondent, having considered the matter in detail, rightly declined to interfere with the suspension-cum-show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. No grounds are made out to interfere with the detailed order passed by the 1st respondent or the suspension-cum-show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders as directed by the 1st respondent in his order dated 16.10.2008. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 24th November, 2008 IBL