THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25675 of 2010 Dated 08th October, 2010 Between: Smt. Shaheen Parveen …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.K. Gopal Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 04.10.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has placed the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization under suspension. At the hearing, Sri K. Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced two contentions, namely, (i) that respondent No.1 failed to give notice to the petitioner before resorting to the action of suspension; and (ii) that the impugned order does not indicate that the authorization is suspended pending enquiry. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do not find merit in the said two contentions. Though the impugned order does not expressly mention that suspension has been made pending enquiry, ordinarily, suspension as a measure of punishment, will not be resorted to without a notice to the fair price shop dealer. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be construed as only interim in nature. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the impugned order of suspension, she is entitled to work out her remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Control Order. Respondent No.1 is directed to treat the impugned order as one of interim suspension and complete the enquiry after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32788 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th October, 2010 GHN