IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21337 of 2006 Between: Rachaprolu Ramaswamy S/o sri Venkata Subbulu R/o Edhara II Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzveed Division, Nuzveed, Krishna District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, decalring the proceedings Rc. A.3366/2006 dt 7- 10-2006 passed by the ﬁrst Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control order 2001 and set a side the same and pass such other order or orders as may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 21337 of 2006 O R D E R: Petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Edhara-II Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District. By order dated 07-10-2006 passed by the respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nuzveedu Division, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended, pending enquiry on the ground of certain allegations in distribution of the essential commodities. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. This Court while directing Rule nisi, by order dated 13-10-2006 suspended the impugned order dated 07-10- 2006. However, it is left open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent, it is stated that in compliance with the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer and steps are also being taken to proceed with the enquiry. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Since the impugned order of suspension is only as an interim measure pending enquiry, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to complete the enquiry itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today if not already completed. Since the impugned order has been suspended by this Court on 13-10-2006 and the petitioner is being continued as on today, the respondents are directed to continue the same till the enquiry is completed and appropriate order is passed by the respondent. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 11-11-2008 KLP