THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18635 of 2011 Date: 05.07.2011 Between: B. Sudershan … Petitioner and The Collector (CS), Warangal District, Warangal and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18635 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal District, in Rc.No.C/440/2011, dated 7.5.2011 suspending the authorization of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop alleging violation of the provisions of the A.P. State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for brevity “the Control Order”), as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner is an authorized Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.3 of Banjarapalli Village of Nekkonda Mandal, Warangal District. On 30.4.2011, the Assistant Supply Officer, Mahabubabad, along with the villagers and print media caught-hold a Tractor bearing No.AP 36 AA/4638/39 with 24 bags of P.D.S. rice, each containing 50 kgs while being dumped into the petitioner’s shop. The said rice was not supported by any release order/truck chits. On inspection of the shop, the team found variation in the stock in P.D.S. rice. Based on the report dated 3.5.2011 submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer, Mahabubabad, the 1st respondent-Collector (CS), Warangal District, initiated proceedings for confiscation of the stock by issuing a show cause notice dated 16.5.2011 under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 28.5.2011. 4. The 2nd respondent, being the competent authority, on noticing that the petitioner was not distributing the P.D.S. rice to the card holders and illegally purchasing the P.D.S. rice from other dealers and diverting the same to the black-market, by means of the impugned order suspended the authorization of the petitioner under the provisions of the Control Order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is not concerned with the P.D.S. rice that was being unloaded into his shop and that though there is no variation in the stock, the 2nd respondent has not considered the matter properly and passed the impugned order. He also contended that even if the allegation as to the variation in the stock taken on its face value, the said variation being minimal, it does not require suspension of the authorization pending enquiry. 6. Indisputably, an enquiry into the allegations as to the illegal purchase of P.D.S. rice and diversion of the same to the black-market and other allegations is pending before the 1st respondent. There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent is competent to take disciplinary action against the authorized dealer under the provisions of the Control Order. Admittedly, the Joint Collector has also initiated action for confiscation of the seized stock by issuing notice dated 16.5.2011, to which the petitioner also responded by filing his explanation. Therefore, the petitioner can as well participate in the enquiry and establish his case that he is no way concerned with the P.D.S. rice and that there is no irregularity committed by him. These are all the issues, which are to be gone into in the enquiry and the same cannot be entertained at this stage. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the impugned order was passed on 7.5.2011, there is no progress in the enquiry. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent be directed to complete the enquiry within a time frame. 8. In view of the said submission and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 05.07.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18635 of 2011 05.07.2011 (Msr)