THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.2805 of 2007 ORDER: 1 The petitioner is an authorised Fair Price Shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities in Venkateshwaram village of Amrabad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. In this Writ Petition he has questioned the order of the District Collector Mahaboobnagar dated 06.01.2007 passed in Case No.CS1/784/2006. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool has passed an order dated 31.08.2006 issued in proceedingsJ/146/2006 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry on the allegation that the petitioner has not distributed ISL rice during the years 2003 to 2006 to the engaged labourers in the village. As against the said order of suspension, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar under Cl.20 of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 (for short ‘Control Order’) and the same was allowed vide proceedings No.CS1/602/2006 dated 22.09.2006. At that stage, the District Collector has taken up suo motu review in exercise of power under Clause 5-A of the Control Order and had set aside the order of the Joint Collector with a further direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry pending with him by duly giving an opportunity to the petitioner and finalise the action at the earliest possible time. Hence the Writ Petition. 3 At the stage of admission, this Court on 15.02.2007 passed interim order suspending the order passed by the District Collector and the said order continued all along. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2007, no counter is filed. 4 It is contended by Mr. Lakshma Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no power to the District Collector to take up a suo motu review in exercise of power under Clause 5-A of the Control Order, which was in force during the relevant time and as such he has no authority to pass the impugned order by which he has set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector. 5 On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that in view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner the impugned order has been passed by the District Collector. 6 I have perused the order passed by the primary authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.08.2006, which itself is an order of suspension of the authorisation granted to the petitioner pending enquiry on certain allegations. 7 Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no power to the District Collector to review the order passed by the appellate authority suo motu, but, as it is stated that enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not yet completed pursuant to the initial order of suspension of authorisation passed by him on 31.08.2006, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As much as the impugned order passed by the District Collector is suspended by this Court by order dated 15.02.2007 and the same continued all along, I direct that the impugned order of the Collector shall remain suspended till appropriate final orders are passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer after completing a detailed enquiry on the allegations made against the petitioner. 8 Subject to the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ----------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 01.11.2011 Kvsn