THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15408 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Chavitipeta village, Kotabommali mandal, Srikakulam district. It is not in dispute that Bhagiradhipuram village also falls within the area of operation of the petitioner’s authorization and, accordingly, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders of both Chavitipeta and Bhagiradhipuram villages since the year 1993. It appears that subsequently, in the year 2007, on the basis of some complaints there was a proposal to bifurcate Bhagiradhipuram village and, a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Kotabommali. After conducting necessary enquiry, the Tahsildar, Kotabommali, submitted reports dated 19.4.2007 and 28.5.2007 stating that since Chavitipeta is a faction ridden village, it is not advisable to shift the fair price shop of Bhagiradhipuram. While the matter stands thus, the impugned order dated 22.6.2007 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry alleging that in the inspection conducted on 19.6.2007 by the enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, it was found that there was a shortage of 1 quintal of PDS rice and it was also found that the petitioner was committing malpractices in maintaining the Fair Price shop. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent- Joint Collector. Though the Appeal is taken on file, the 1st respondent by order dated 11.7.2007 rejected petitioner’s application for stay. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry dated 22.6.2007 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.7.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. While placing reliance upon the inspection report dated 19.5.2007 and 28.5.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of suspension pending enquiry was only due to political rivalry at the instance of some individuals, who are inimically disposed against the petitioner. It is to be noted that the impugned order of suspension was passed only as an interim measure pending enquiry. Hence, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion as to the correctness of the alleged irregularities. It is also brought to my notice that the 2nd respondent has already issued a show cause notice dated 29.6.2007, in response to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. If that be so, it is for the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders dated 22.6.2007 or 11.7.2007. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is made it clear that in case the enquiry is not completed within the time fixed above, the petitioner’s authorisation shall stand restored. No costs. _______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) 20th August, 2007. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15408 OF 2007 20th August, 2007. Between: K. Srinivasa Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Joint Collector, Civil Supplies, Srikakulam and another. .. Respondents.