THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32107 of 2010 DT.21.12.2010 Between: Shivanadri Madhusudhan … Petitioner And The Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad, Adilabad District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Surender Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated Nil.12.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. At the hearing, Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order of suspension cannot be sustained because the same was resorted to solely on the ground of initiation and pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). On a perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this submission. In the impugned order of suspension, respondent No.2 has clearly stated that the report of respondent No.3 has disclosed that there was variation of the commodities between the ground stock and distribution register to the extent of 1.63 qtls., of PDS rice and 0.20½ kgs of sugar (excess), and 46 packtes palm oil and 0.20 kgs of wheat (shortage). While taking note of these variations, respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization till issue of further orders from Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad. On a careful consideration of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the same is based on an independent assessment of respondent No.2 and not merely on the factum of pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. However, while suspending the authorization, respondent No.2 has stated that the same will be in force till issue of further orders from the Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad, which implies that till the completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the suspension order will continue to be in force. To this extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained because the enquiry into the alleged irregularities of the petitioner initiated by respondent No.2 is independent of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, finalisation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act need not be awaited for completion of the enquiry by respondent No.2. While declining to interfere with the impugned order, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order, without awaiting the finalisation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40810 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 21.12.2010 VGB