THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 23702 of 2006. ORDER: The petitioner who is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 2 of Dharmaraopeta village, Sadasivnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy in File No. B/1055/2006 dt. 9.10.2006 suspending her authorisation temporarily, as illegal. It appears that the 2nd respondent/Mandal Revenue Officer, Sadasivnagar submitted a report to the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner collected some amounts from the residents of the village assuring them that he would secure white ration cards to them. Basing on the said report, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter, temporarily suspended her license. It is stated that the petitioner did not give any explanation. Contending that the order of the 1st respondent suspending her license temporarily is illegal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded due opportunity by supplying a copy of the alleged report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sadashivnagar and the petitioner is not aware as to what are the actual allegations against her. He would further contend that since the authorisation has been suspended without mentioning any specific period, the same amounts to cancellation of authorisation itself, without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the impugned order is interim in nature and the authorisation has been suspended pending a regular enquiry. He would therefore contend that the petitioner could as well participate in the enquiry and defend her case. It is true that a perusal of the impugned order shows that the authorisation of the petitioner has been suspended without reference to the period of suspension. The impugned order therefore appears to be one imposing a punishment on the petitioner. However, in view of the specific submission of the learned Government Pleader that a regular enquiry is still pending, I am of the opinion that the impugned order should be construed as an interim order pending enquiry. That being so, it is incumbent on the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry by following due procedure and pass final orders in accordance with law. This Court by the order in W.P.M.P.No. 30221 of 2006 dt. 14.11.2006 suspended operation of the impugned order thereby enabling the petitioner to continue to run fair price shop. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is still running the fair price shop. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, it is not appropriate to disturb the distribution of commodities causing inconvenience to the public at this length of time. Instead, enquiry itself can be directed to be concluded within a time frame. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry initiated after due notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained until conclusion of the enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 14.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 23702 of 2006. ORDER: Dt. 14.12.2010.