IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.14324 of 2009 Between: B.Sivamma. … Petitioner And: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur and another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O.Manohar Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the inordinate delay in respondent No.1 in completing the enquiry and passing final order in the proceedings initiated against her under the A.P. State Public Distribution System Order, 2001. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner’s fair price shop was inspected by respondent No.2 and based on his inspection report four charges were framed against her. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to show- notice dated 3-11-2007, her authorization has been kept under suspension by respondent No.1 by his order dated 23-4-2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of suspension, which was intended to be a purely temporary measure, is allowed to be continued for nearly 18 months. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that prolongation of enquiry and continuation of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization constitutes arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.1; and that, therefore, the authorization of the petitioner may be restored. In my considered view, there can be no justification for respondent No.1 to keep the enquiry pending even after issuing show-cause notice and receiving the explanation from the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suspension is only a stop gap measure to enable the authorities to complete the enquiry and see that proper distribution is ensured through an alternative arrangement. But, at the same time, I am not inclined to direct restoration of the petitioner’s authorization merely on the ground of delay in completing the enquiry. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass final order in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-7-2009 MNR