THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8283 of 2011 Dated 29.03.2011 Between: Tutta Nookaveni …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Collector, Kakinada and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 23.09.2009 of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization on certain allegations. At the hearing, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though more than 18 months had elapsed from the time of suspension of the petitioner’s authorization, respondent No.2 has not taken any steps towards holding of enquiry and passing of a final order. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the record. In my opinion, respondent No.2, having suspended the petitioner’s authorization, is not justified in keeping the enquiry pending without passing a final order. An order of suspension pending enquiry being an interim measure, the same cannot be continued for unduly long period. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry, wherein he shall give proper opportunity to the petitioner to explain her case and pass a final order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10293 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th March, 2011 GHN