HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26735 of 2008 Date : 20.10.2010 Between : Lanka Dhana Lakshmi. …..Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26735 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Neela Devipuram village in Burja Mandal of Srikakulam District. Alleging that she is not residing in the village after her marriage and one Mr.V.Ramesh is running the fair price shop and that the commodities are also being sold at higher prices than prescribed, the authorization of the petitioner is suspended by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, by proceedings, dated 17.10.2008, issued in Rc.No.111/2008-A. Consequently, a notification, dated 18.11.2008, is issued in Rc.No.2007/2008-H, inviting applications to appoint temporary dealer in place of the petitioner. Assailing the correctness of both the orders, this writ petition is filed in 2008, and this Court, by an order dated 5th December 2008, suspended the proceedings, dated 17.10.2008, as well as the consequential notification, dated 18.11.2008, and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 17.10.2008, shows that it is an order passed, suspending the authorization of petitioner, pending inquiry. Though in clear terms it is not stated so in the operative portion of the order, from the subject of the impugned proceedings, it is clear that it is suspension of authorization pending inquiry. As per the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, in view of serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, an inquiry is to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, but in view of pendency of inquiry, it is not desirable for this Court to record any findings on such allegations. As much as the inquiry is pending before the competent authority, and as this Court granted interim orders as early as on 5th of December 2008, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct inquiry into the allegations which are subject matter of the proceedings, dated 17.10.2008, issued by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, and pass appropriate final orders as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order granted by this Court on 5th December 2008 shall continue to operate till final orders are passed by the competent authority. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th October 2010 ajr