IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13718 of 2009 Between: A.Yesurathnam, S/o. Isaq, Shop No.1939, Morapalli Village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial Division, Jagtial, Karimnagar District. 2 The Tahsildar, Jagtial Mandal, Jagtial, Karimnagar District. 3 The Food Inspector Jagtial, Jagtial, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition for a mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 23.06.2008, by which, his fair price shop authorisation was suspended and the further action of respondent No.1 in not conducting enquiry and passing final order, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a dealer of fair price shop bearing No.1939 of Morapalli Village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District. On certain allegations, the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended by respondent No.1 on 23.06.2008. On the same day, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation against the proposed cancellation of his authorization. The petitioner claimed to have filed his explanation in July, 2008 itself. He pleaded that after due enquiry, respondent No.2 submitted a report on 22.06.2009 to respondent No.1 wherein he recommended for petitioner’s exoneration. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of more than one year from the time of initiation of proceedings against the petitioner and suspension of his fair price shop authorization, no final order has been passed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that respondent No.1 ought to have displayed reasonable dispatch in completing the enquiry and passing a final order. The power to suspend authorization is coupled with the obligation of the disciplinary authority to complete the enquiry and pass a final order with reasonable diligence and dispatch. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order after considering the material on record and the explanation submitted by the petitioner to show cause notice, dated 23.06.2008, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17919 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni