THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Appeal No.1734 of 2005 ORDER(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) : The appellant-petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer dated 5-1-2004 whereby his authorization was suspended pending enquiry. The learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal in W. P. No. 24421 of 2004 dated 28-12-2004, observed that the appellate authority had passed a cryptic order of remand to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, that while a notice was issued, a reasoned order was not passed, that, while the show cause notice issued to the petitioner required him to explain why action should not be taken and though the petitioner had submitted his explanation thereto, except relying on the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. Placing reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court wherein it was held that suspension of authorization could not be continued beyond 90 days except under extraordinary circumstances, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the ﬁrst respondent dated 5-1-2004. The said order was suspended by the order of the Division Bench in WAMP No. 3100/2000 dated 19-9-2005. It is evident from the order of suspension that the allegations leveled against the respondent/writ petitioner are serious. He is alleged to have not only indulged in mis-utilizing more than 100 tonnes of rice meant for the Food for Work Programme but also to have abstained from attending the fair price shop for a period of 3 to 4 months. We are satisﬁed that these serious allegations necessitated an enquiry being held in this regard. We are also satisﬁed that the facts of the present case constitute an extraordinary circumstance which would justify continuing the order of suspension beyond a period of 90 days. Viewed from any angle, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. The second appellant shall complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not even later than 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after complying with the procedural requirements prescribed in this regard. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. ____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J Kvrk 04-09-2008 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Appeal No. 1734 of 2005 (order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) 04th September 2008