The Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali Writ Petition No.12031 of 2011 Between: D.V.Prasad ..... Petitioner AND 1.The State, rep. by the District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.R.Avula, learned Counsel representing Mr.Rama Rao Kochiri Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner, whose fair price shop authorisation has been suspended, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of suspension, dated 16-07-2010, in Rc.No.2435/2010-CSDT, passed by the second respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, and confirmed by the fourth respondent- Joint Collector, Guntur District, in A.C.D.Dis.No.25/2010-S7, dated 28-03-2011, as illegal. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of 24th circle of Chilakaluripeta Town, Guntur District. On a report, dated 15-07-2010, of the third respondent- Tahsildar Chilakaluripet, alleging that the petitioner committed irregularities by stocking PDS rice in the house of one P.Deelip Kumar and in distributing the PDS rice, the second respondent passed order, dated 16-07-2010, suspending the petitioner’s authorisation until further orders and pending detailed enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the fourth respondent and the same was also dismissed by order, dated 28-03-2011. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of this Writ Petition contending that although considerable time has lapsed ever since the suspension of his authorisation, no further steps have been taken either to initiate the enquiry or drop the allegations. Heard Sri V.R.Avula representing Sri Rama Rao Kochiri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the prolonged suspension of the petitioner’s authorisation without any further action is causing great prejudice to the petitioner. It is true that the second respondent had suspended the authorisation of the petitioner by order, dated 16-07- 2010, and that the same was confirmed by the fourth respondent by order, dated 28-03-2011. Ever since then, the petitioner has been disabled to run the fair price shop. If disciplinary action is initiated, the authorities concerned are not justified in keeping the proceedings pending for unreasonably long time. It is true that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed only on 28-03-2011, but the same cannot be a ground for refraining from initiating regular proceedings. I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to the second respondent to initiate and complete the enquiry within a time frame. In the circumstances, the second respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, is directed to initiate and complete the enquiry in pursuance of the report, dated 15-07-2010, of the third respondent- Tahsildar Chilakaluripet, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (Noushad Ali, J) Date: 26th April, 2011 lur