THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27391 OF 2008 BETWEEN: B. Maddileti, S/o. Bojjanna, Permanent F.P. Shop Dealer, Thondapadu village, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapur District. …. PETITIONER And 1. The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Ananthapur District, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri B. Narasimha Sarma Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondents 4 to 7: Sri G. Seena Kumar The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the 3rd respondent, viz., Tahsildar Gooti, Ananthapur District, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry, as illegal The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of shop No.24 of Tondapadu village Gooti Mandal Ananthapur District. Earlier by orders dated 21.11.2008, the 3rd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that he was not maintaining true and correct accounts and making improper entries in the sales registers as if he had supplied the commodities to the cardholders. Against the said order, it appears that an appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, (Civil Supplies), Ananthapur. We are not concerned with the said order in this writ petition. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, the authorization has been suspended temporarily on the ground that after allotment of red- gram, although the petitioner was obligated to remit the cost thereof to release the stock for eventual distribution for the month of November, 2008 within the time i.e., 5.11.2008, the petitioner failed to remit the said amount. Since the petitioner was irregular in remitting the cost of the commodities allotted to the shop, his authorization has been suspended. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not default in remitting the required amount, and in fact, the amount already remitted with reference to the other essential commodities, was in excess and the balance was still remaining with the department. He would therefore submit that the impugned order is unsustainable. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 7 submits that the petitioner has been very irregular in distribution of commodities and habitually defaulting in proper distribution of the commodities. The learned Government Pleader submits that the impugned order is suspension pending enquiry only and the petitioner can as well participate in the enquiry and defend his case. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. Whether the petitioner actually defaulted in remitting the required amount and whether some amount was lying with the department to his credit are the questions to be decided in the enquiry. This Court while admitting the writ petition by orders in W.P.M.P.No.35884 of 2008, dated 16.12. 2008 suspended operation of the impugned order and further made it absolute by order dated 18.02.1009. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of the said order, the petitioner has been continuously distributing the commodities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate that the enquiry itself be directed to be completed within a time frame in order to avoid inconvenience to the public and also hardship to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till the enquiry is completed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 22nd November, 2010 Js.