THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27832 of 2010 Dated 02nd February, 2011 Between: Kotha Prasad …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.M.M.Srinivas Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 20.10.2010, of respondent No.3, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation of shop No.6 of Gudivada, Town. While ordering notice, this Court on 10.11.2010, passed the following order: “Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the orders of suspension of fair price shop dealership. However, in the present case, the impugned order appears to suffer from more than one legal infirmity. Under second proviso to Clause 5(7) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Assistant Supplier Officer/Tahsildar concerned is empowered to suspend the fair price shop dealership for a period of 90 days only. The impugned order does not indicate such a time limit. Moreover, even a prima facie consideration of the merits of the case would show that while the inspecting officials did not notice any variations, except a minor variation of -1 in Kerosene Oil, respondent No.3 has resorted to the action of suspension on the only allegation that the petitioner was reported to have been selling the commodities at prices higher than that fixed by the Government. In my prima facie opinion, the impugned order, whereby the extreme action of suspension was taken on such a mere allegation, cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order is, therefore, suspended, pending further orders. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies seeks time for filing counter affidavit.” When the writ petition came up for hearing on 18.01.2011, a request was made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for further time for filing counter affidavit. Even today, when the case has come up, no counter affidavit has been filed and another request has been made for adjournment of the case for filing counter affidavit. Inasmuch as the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner is pending and the impugned order has been passed pending such enquiry, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order. As regards the order of suspension, for the same reasons as are contained in order, dated 10.11.2010, the impugned order cannot be sustained. At any rate, under Clause-5(7) of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, respondent No.3 is empowered to suspend the authorisation for a period not exceeding 90 days. As the impugned order was passed on 20.10.2010 and the period of 90 days has expired, the same ceases to exist. For both the above-motioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 10.11.2010, granted by this Court, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.35503 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd February, 2011 VGB