APHC010342622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 125 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3483] Emani Srimannarayana ...Petitioner Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Nalluri Ramesh Babu Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Civil Supplies CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 23rd July, 2025. P C : The present writ petition has been filed purportedly in public interest by the petitioner, seeking issuance of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the official respondents in not conducting enquiry against the 8th respondent, who is a Fair Price Shop Dealer, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the statutory procedure. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 2. The 8th respondent is a fair price shop dealer in Machavaram Village of Prakasam District. On a complaint lodged by the villagers, that the said respondent was not distributing the essential items to the beneficiaries, an 2 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_125_2025 inspection was conducted by the Additional Food Inspector, Ongole, wherein it was found that the inventory was not matching with the actual quantities mentioned in the registers maintained on the spot. 3. The 8th respondent is then stated to have been placed under suspension by the 5th respondent i.e., the R.D.O., Ongole. A show cause notice was also issued and served upon the 8th respondent, to which it is stated an explanation was also filed. 4. The 8th respondent is then stated to have filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No.11925 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court with a direction to the 5th respondent to revoke the Suspension Order dated 30.11.2024, by placing reliance upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima 1, in which it was held that the orders of suspension cannot be continued indefinitely and that period of 90 days should normally be sufficient to conclude an enquiry. 5. In the present PIL, the petitioner seeks stay of all proceedings of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11925 of 2025 as also seeks a direction against the official respondents to conduct the enquiry in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.949 of 2025. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 3 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_125_2025 7. In substance, the present petition has been filed to seek enforcement of the orders passed in W.P.No.949 of 2025 as also with a view to stay the operation of the judgment and order passed in W.P.No.11925 of 2025. The prayer so made is unsustainable as a PIL cannot be maintained for either setting aside an order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction, as in the case of W.P.No.11925 of 2025, nor can a PIL be maintained with a view to enforce the orders passed in W.P.No.949 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The present petition on the face of it is misconceived and clearly appears to have been filed with an oblique motive and therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be deposited in the account of the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee within three months. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN