HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19819 of 2010 Dated: 13-08-2010 Between: Ch. Seetaravamma. … Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19819 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 2nd of August 2010, passed in Proceedings Rc.No.2717/2010-B by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, suspending the authorisation granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Piduguralla and found some irregularities in distribution of commodities to the cardholders. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are as under : 1. She stored 40 quintals of PDS rice (83 bags) in the house so as to divert the same to black market for personal gain. 2. She used to distribute the essential commodities from 15th to 18th of every month and thus caused inconvenience to the cardholders. 3. She has not exhibited the stock-cum-price board. 4 . She used to purchase PDS rice from the cardholders and sell them in black market at higher rates for personal gain and thus, the dealer has involved in clandestine business of PDS rice. 5. She has not written the surname of cardholders in the sales registers and not filled up all the columns in sales registers. On the aforesaid allegations, the authorisation of petitioner is suspended, pending inquiry. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the books were not properly verified by the inspecting officials and that allegations are made against the petitioner, contrary to the entries made in the books and also the available physical stocks. The impugned order is an order of suspension pending inquiry. If there is any defence on the allegations made against her, the petitioner as well can submit her explanation before the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer when an inquiry is conducted. But, as much as the impugned order is passed as an interim measure pending inquiry, I do not find any merit in the writ petition so as to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage. As it is stated that the inquiry is already initiated, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the inquiry initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months from today and pass appropriate final orders. Till such appropriate final orders are passed, no permanent arrangement shall be made in place of the petitioner, but, it is open for the respondents to make temporary arrangements for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th August 2010 ajr