IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15347 of 2008 Between: Md.Moinuddin S/o. Imamuddin Dharmaraopet, Mandal Sadashivnagar, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, District Nizamabad. 2 The District Supply Officer, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 / Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, in proceedings No.B1/988/2008, dated 28.06.2008 in suspending petitioner authorization of Fair Price Shop Dealer No.37 of Village Dharmaraopet, Mandal Sadashivanagar, District Nizamabad, as illegal, bad, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the said suspension order in the interest of justice and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.BHOOMA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15347 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.6.2008 suspending pending enquiry the authorization of the petitioner for the fair price shop No. 37 and in-charge of shop No. 2 of Dharmaraopet Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District, on the ground of commission of the irregularities specified therein, which include shortage in the ground stocks in an extent of 103 Ltrs., of Kerosene oil and 16.52 Qtls., of P.D.S. Rice; for not opening the shop during working hours; for not maintaining the records of essential commodities and for not submitting coupons for the month of May, 2008 to the office of the Tahsildar concerned. Petitioner states that the ground on which the suspension is ordered is vague. The above contention is without basis. The petitioner is apprehending that the eventual enquiry will not be conducted expeditiously since he has not yet received the show cause notice, though the order of suspension is dated 28.6.2008. In the circumstances of the case, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The challenge to the order of suspension pending enquiry of the petitioner’s authorization is without merit and it is rejected. The respondent shall however initiate and conclude the enquiry and pass final orders on the allegations, which led to the impugned order of suspension of authorization, expeditiously and in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 17th July, 2008 pnb