IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22054 of 2008 Between: R. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Sita Ramaiah, (under order of suspension), Tikkireddipalem, R/o. Tikkireddipalem, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, Guntur. 2 The Joint Collector & Addl. District Magistrate, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No. 598/2007-G dated: 5.5.2007 of the 3rd respondent in suspending the authorization of fair price shop and continued to be placed the authorization of the fair price shop under suspension even after 1 1/2 years, inspite of the direction of the 2nd respondent to ﬁnalise the proceedings within 4 weeks is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and violation of the control orders and a colourable exercise of powers and to quash or set aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to revoke the order of suspension of authorization of fair price shop of the petitioner by supplying the essential commodities for distribution to the cardholders of Tikkireddipalem Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22054 of 2008 O R D E R: Petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Tikkireddipalem Village, Kadapa Mandal, Guntur District. His authorization is suspended by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, by order dated 05-05-2007 alleging certain irregularities in distribution of the essential commodities, which constituted violation of conditions of authorization issued under the A.P. Schedule Commodities Regulation of Distribution System (Control) Order 2001. On the same day the respondent also issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation on 16-06-2007. Since no orders have been passed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent against the order of suspension dated 05-05-2007. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 11-04-2008 with a direction to the third respondent to ﬁnalize the proceedings within a period of four weeks. Now the present writ petition is ﬁled alleging that in spite of the order passed by the second respondent, the third respondent failed to complete the enquiry so far and therefore seeking a direction to set aside the order of suspension dated 05-05-2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In spite of suﬃcient time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Though it is open to the third respondent to suspend the authorization pending enquiry into the contravention of any of the provisions of the control order, the law is well settled that such suspension should be for a reasonable time. The 2nd proviso to clause 5(7) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which superseded the Control Order of 2001, speciﬁcally provided that the period of suspension pending enquiry should not exceed 90 days. In the circumstances, I ﬁnd force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the third respondent in not completing the enquiry initiated against the petitioner, which resulted in suspension of his authorization from 05-05-2007 onwards, is arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, while leaving it open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry following due process of law, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to restore the authorization of the petitioner forthwith. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 23-10-2008 KLP