HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.785 of 2008 Date : 13.09.2010 Between : G. Nageswara Rao. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, West Gadavari District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.785 of 2008 ORDER : Although the interlocutory applications are listed, in view of the fact that the order impugned in the writ petition is an order of suspension pending inquiry, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of. The petitioner in the writ petition is a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in K.Gokavaram village of Lingapalem Mandal in West Godavari District. Alleging certain irregularities against the petitioner, the primary authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, by an order dated 19.09.2003, passed in Proceedings No.1122/2003(C), suspended the authorization of the petitioner, pending inquiry. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal and further revision before the Joint Collector and Collector, respectively, but was unsuccessful. Hence, questioning the said orders, he has filed this writ petition. A perusal of the orders passed by the respondents indicate that there was a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Lingapalem, to the effect that on 15.09.2003, on receiving information that when 242 bags of rice was being transported in a lorry from the petitioner’s fair price shop, the villagers have intercepted the lorry and taken away the rice, he along with other staff, went to the said village and seized the stock. Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended, pending inquiry. Having regard to the allegation made against the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in the order of suspension, passed by the RDO, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. However, as much as the very order impugned in the writ petition is an order of suspension pending inquiry, passed as early as on 19.09.2003, and in the absence of any interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to complete the inquiry initiated against the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is not completed so far. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th September 2010 ajr