E.Mallika, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Its Principal Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.34154 of 2015 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.35 of Pulivendula Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. While so, the third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 01.04.2015 levelling two allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.04.2015. After receiving the explanation, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended, by proceedings of the third respondent dated 18.04.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14216 of 2015 and this Court granted interim suspension on 07.05.2015 and ultimately disposed of the said Writ Petition on 18.06.2015 directing the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and pass final orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It was also directed that the suspension granted on 07.05.2015 shall continue till passing of the final orders. Now a final order is passed on 21.08.2015, challenging which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The earlier show cause notice was issued on the basis of the report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Pulivendula, dated 24.03.2015. After disposal of W.P.No.14216 of 2015 on 18.06.2015, the fourth respondent submitted a final report, based on which, the third respondent issued another show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.07.2015. The petitioner submitted her explanation and personally appeared before the third respondent on 07.08.2015. After considering the explanation and the report submitted by the fourth respondent and verifying the same with the record available, the third respondent came to the conclusion that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved. He also recorded that the petitioner herself agreed that

entries were not properly made in the stock register.

4. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. But, in view of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 14.10.2015 TJMR