THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17005 OF 2005 Dated 2nd August 2005 Between: Katraddi Peda Venkata Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy, aged 45 years, Occu:F.P.Shop Dealer, R/o.Gundreddypaloli village, Komorolu Mandal, Prakasam District. …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District, & another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17005 OF 2005 O R D E R: The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer of Gundreddypalli village of Komorolu Mandal, Prakasam District. Through his proceedings dated 27.04.2005, the first respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner, for a period of three months. The petitioner was also required, to submit show cause, in relation to certain irregularities said to have been committed by him. Petitioner states that he submitted his application, within the stipulated time. His grievance is that though the period of three months, for which his dealership was suspended, had elapsed; the first respondent has not restored the dealership. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the order, dated 27.4.2005, discloses that the first respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner, for a specific period of three months. An enquiry was conducted, through the same proceedings. The petitioner states that the explanation has since been submitted. Once the first respondent himself has chosen to suspend the authorization of the petitioner, for a specific period of three months, he ought to have concluded the entire proceedings within that period, or must have restored the dealership to the petitioner, on expiry of that period. Failure or refusal, to restore the dealership, after three months, amounts to the first respondent disregarding his own order. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the first respondent is directed to restore the dealership of the petitioner, forthwith. It is, however, made clear that this order does not preclude the first respondent, from proceeding with the enquiry initiated by him, against the petitioner, and passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 2nd August 2005 Note: C.C. in three days. (B/o) PAN