P LAKSHMINARASAIAH Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, the first respondent in reference No. A. 2132/90 dt. 11-8-90 by praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in suspending his authorisation on 11-8-90 and the order of the first respondent referred to above, as illegal and void and for a further direction to the respondents to supply essential commodities to him.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair-price shop dealer in 1985. On 11-2-90, the authorisations in respect of ward Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 were suspended. On 11-9-90 the 2nd respondent suspended the authorisation of the petitioner on a report by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the petitioner was involved in a case under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act inasmuch as he diverted the essential commodities for black-marketting. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Cuddapah, the first respondent herein. On 24-8-90, the first res- pondent rejected the appeal and the stay petition iiled along with the satfie, but directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings pending before him within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) Sri D. Sudarshan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the petitiner and even after the impugned order was passed, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has not initiated the proceedings, let alone completing the same. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner even after the order of the first respondent.