THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19381 of 2009 DATE:14.09.2009 Between: M. Saritha ... Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar District and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19381 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No.D/1333/2009, dated 22.07.2009, suspending her authorisation, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the authorised dealer of fair price shop No.4926 of Medaram village, Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District and has been running the fair price shop without any complaint. While so, on 16.06.2009, the Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapally Mandal inspected her shop and found variation in the stocks. Later, he submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally Mandal - 1st respondent. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice No.D/1333/09, dated 26.06.2009 calling upon her to explain the reasons as to why her authorisation should not be suspended, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, for which she offered explanation on 07.07.2009 denying the allegations made against her and seeking to drop the show cause notice. Without considering the said explanation, the 1st respondent issued proceedings No.D/1333/09, dated 22.07.2009 suspending her authorisation. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. If an order of suspension is by way of a substantive punishment, a duty is cast upon the Authority to specify the period during which the authorisation shall be under suspension. If the order of suspension is by way of an interim punishment during pendency of enquiry, there is no need for the Authority to specify the period. But, the order of suspension shall be only during pendency of enquiry. 5. Here is the case where a show cause notice was issued by the 1st respondent, for which the petitioner offered his explanation and thereafter the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed. From the above, it can be said that the order of suspension was passed, after holding an enquiry. Therefore, the 1st respondent should have specified the period of suspension. From a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the order does not speak about the period of suspension. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order without mentioning the period of suspension and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings No.D/1333/09, dated 22.07.2009, issued by the 1st respondent suspending the authorisation of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop of Medaram village, Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District, is hereby set aside. However, this order does not preclude the 1st respondent to pass an order afresh, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 14th September, 2009 Note: Furnish CC by three days. ( b/o) CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19437 of 2009 (Allowed) 14th September, 2009 Note: Furnish CC by three days. ( b/o) CBS