D SAMBASHIVA RAO Vs. JOINT COOLECTOR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 4-6-2004, suspending the authorization of the petitioner, on certain allegations. On the same day, he issued a show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. Through Order, dated 9-9-2004, the 1st respondent remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent and directed him to conclude the proceedings, positively, within one week from the date of receipt of the order and to report compliance. Petitioner states that the 2nd respondent has not disposed of the proceedings as yet and that he is disabled from functioning as fair price shop dealer.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

(3.) The authorization of the petitioner was suspended, way back on 4-6-2004. The 1st respondent refused to interfere with the same when the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. Instead, he has chosen to direct the 2nd respondent to conclude the proceedings 'positively within one week'. If the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders as yet, it reflects sadly on the functioning of the office of the 2nd respondent. This Court is not inclined to verify and examine the reasons, if any, for non-compliance with the specific directions issued by the 1st respondent.