THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.25902 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Alluri Guna Sundari, W/o. Sreenivasulu, F.P. Shop Dealer, R/o. 18-1-90-12G7, Yashoda Nagar, 18th Ward, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. …. PETITIONER And 1. The District Collector, Chittoor District, and another. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri M. Venkataramana Reddy Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies. The Court made the following order: ORDER: The order of the 2nd respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District passed in Roc.K/2062/08, dated 18.10.2008 suspending the authorization of the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is an authorized Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of shop No.10 of Tirupathi town, Chittoor District. On a report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Tirupathi to the effect that there was certain variations in the stock and that the petitioner had entered certain bogus card numbers in the sales register as if the essential commodities had been issued. Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent herein passed the impugned order and suspended the authorization. As against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity alleged against him. Even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken on face value, the variation in the stock is within the permissible limits and that the commodities were distributed only to the authorized cardholders. The counsel also submits that the impugned order has been passed without notice to the petitioner, and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that under the impugned order, the authorization has been suspended pending enquiry and the same is not the final order. The petitioner can as well participate in the enquiry and defend his case. A perusal of the impugned order, no doubt, does not show that the authorization has been suspended pending enquiry. Nonetheless, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it has been specifically admitted that the impugned order is only interim in nature and that the suspension is only pending enquiry. This Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 26.11.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.33887 of 2008 suspended the operation of the impugned order. Consequently, the petitioner has been running the shop and any disturbance at this point of time would cause dislocation of distribution of commodities causing inconvenience to the public. Since the 2nd respondent has admitted that the impugned order is only an order of suspension pending enquiry, it is appropriate that the enquiry itself should be completed within a time frame. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending the enquiry, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Roc.K/2062/08, dated 18.10.2008 shall remain suspended. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 11th November, 2010 Js.