HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1475 of 2011 Date : 29-1-2011 Between: Smt.B.Nagamani w/o.Yellayya .. Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri B.Devanand Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not initiating and completing the enquiry and consequently to direct respondent No.1 to restore the authorisation suspended on 6-8-2008 by respondent No.2. I have heard Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is fair price shop dealer of Shop No.2 of Pedakondarajupalem village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. On the allegation that the inspection by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Bhogapuram revealed that the petitioner is possessing excess quantity of 420 litres of kerosene oil in her shop and that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 were initiated, respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner’s authorisation under sub-clause (7) of Clause 5 of A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008 (for short “2008 Order”). As no further steps were initiated by the respondents for holding and completing enquiry and passing a final order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. One of the pleas raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that under second proviso to sub-clause (7) of Clause 5 of the 2008 Order, respondent No.2 is empowered to suspend the authorisation of the fair price shop for a period of 90 days only and that further action of continuing suspension beyond 90 days or cancellation of authorisation shall be taken by the appointing authority/disciplinary authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub- Collector/District Supply Officers. On this premise, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non- resumption of supplies for distribution by the petitioner on the expiry of 90 days from 6-8-2008 is patently illegal. I have carefully considered this submission and I find merit therein. Under the above noted Clause, respondent No.2 has power and jurisdiction to suspend the authorisation of fair price shop dealership for a period not exceeding 90 days. At the hearing the case was passed- over in the forenoon to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to obtain instructions as to whether the period of suspension against the petitioner was further extended by respondent No.1 as adumbrated in the above mentioned Clauses. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, stated that no such extension has been made. Though the impugned order does not limit the period of suspension, by operation of second proviso to sub-clause (7) of Clause 5 of the 2008 Order, the time limit requires to be read into the impugned order. As such the impugned order of suspension has become automatically inoperative with the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order. The respondents ought to have resumed supplies to the petitioner even if they envisage any enquiry into the allegations. As no such steps have been taken, there can be no justification for treating the petitioner as being continued under suspension though in law no such suspension subsists after the expiry of 90 days. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to resume the supplies to the petitioner forthwith for distribution through fair price shop No.2 of Pedakondarajupalem village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 29-1-2011 AM