IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11711 of 2004 Between: G. Devachittam S/o Pullaiah R/o Thonda Village of Thirumalagiri Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector,(Civil Supplies) Nalgonda District 2 RDO., Suryapet, Nalgonda District 3 MRO, Thirumalagiri Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District .....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 and declare the action of the second Respondent in issuing the impugned proceeding NO.D/2103/2002 dated 20-11-2002 suspending authorization of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 (1)(g) of Article 21 of the Constitution of India For the Petitioner:MR.K.ASHOK REDDY, Advocate For the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is field by the petitioner, who is a Fair Price Shop Dealer, aggrieved by the suspension of his authorsation by proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.11.2002. 2. According to the petitioner on certain allegations the second respondent passed the impugned order of suspension based on the report of the third respondent. The said order of suspension is pending enquiry. The said enquiry has not yet been completed and the petitioner is continuously kept under suspension, which the respondents are not entitled to do so for an indefinite period. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought suspension of the impugned order so as to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. It is also contended that even after number of representations made by the petitioner, the second respondent did not complete the enquiry. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader, however, contended that the petitioner has got remedy of appeal before the Joint Collector, but the petitioner did not avail the said remedy of appeal. Therefore, it is not a case warranting interference by this Court. 4. Heard both sides and considered the material on record. 5. Though, the order of suspension of the authorization of the petitioner was passed on 20.11.2002 by the second respondent basing on the report of the third respondent, no enquiry was taken up and completed so far. As per the orders passed by this Court in earlier cases, when an order of suspension pending enquiry is passed, the enquiry is to be completed within a period of three months. But in the present case, even though more than one and half years have been passed, no final orders are passed so far according to the petitioner. 6. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order of suspension is set aside and the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the card holders, pending final orders to be passed after completion of the enquiry, pursuant to the order of the second respondent, dated 20.11.2002. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. --------------- - 09.07.2004 Note: Furnish CC by Monday B/o va To 1 The Collector,(Civil Supplies) Nalgonda District 2 RDO., Suryapet, Nalgonda District 3 MRO, Thirumalagiri Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District 4 Two CCs to G.P for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5 Two CD Copies