THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17723 of 2011 Date: 27.06.2011 Between: P. Balaji … Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17723 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings Rc.A7/763/2011, dated 28.4.2011 suspending the authorization of the Fair Price Shop dealership of the petitioner pending enquiry. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of Shop No.28 of Tummalapalem Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. On 20.4.2011 the Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Vijayawada, inspected the petitioner’s shop and found certain variations in the stock. The report submitted by the said inspecting officer was taken cognizance by the 1st respondent and having been convinced that there is a prima-facie case of violation of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 28.4.2011, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while denying the allegations made in the impugned order, submits that even if the allegations are taken on the face of it, the alleged variation noticed in the stock is within the permissible limits and hence the allegations do not warrant suspension of the petitioner’s authorization. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the inspecting officer found shortage both in the stock of P.D.S. rice and Pamolin Oil, which is in contravention of the provisions of the Control Order and, therefore, the 1st respondent is justified in passing the impugned order suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending the enquiry. 6. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. Indisputably, the 1st respondent has taken cognizance of the report submitted by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Vijayawada and an enquiry in that regard is pending against the petitioner. However, it could be seen that the impugned order was passed on 28.4.2011 and the matter has been pending since then. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 27.06.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17723 of 2011 27.06.2011 (Msr)