THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28344 OF 2008 BETWEEN: B. Rama Rao, S/o. Sankari, F.P. Shop Dealer, Soda Village, Patha Patnam Mandal, Srikakulam District. …. PETITIONER And 1. The Tahsildar, Patha Patnam Mandl, Srikakulam District and another. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies. The Court made the following order: ORDER: 1. The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop Dealer in respect of Soda Village, Patha Patnam Mandal, Srikakulam District, has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the 1st respondent, viz., the Tahsildar, Patha Patnam Mandal in Proceedings Rc.No.525/2008/CS, dated 30.11.2008 whereby the Authorization has been suspended for a period of 90 days. 2. A perusal of the said order shows that the Sarpanch, Soda Gram Panchayat made a representation through the In-charge Minister against the petitioner and on the said representation, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Pata Patnam Mandal submitted a report that the shop was being run by a benami person, viz., K. Tarakeswara Rao of Tamara village, and that the dealer was not maintaining the timings. On the said allegations, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order keeping the authorization under suspension for a period of 90 days. 3. The learned counsel Sri A. Rama Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe and he is being harassed at the instance of his rivals with the help of the political leaders. Earlier, on the same allegations that Tarakeswara Rao was a benami to the petitioner, enquiry was conducted through the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Pata Patnam and in the said enquiry it was clearly found that the petitioner was only taking the assistance of the said person. The learned counsel therefore submits that the allegations that the shop is being run by a benami person and that the timings are not being maintained properly, are totally false. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the enquiry into the said allegations is pending before the 2nd respondent and the petitioner can as well defend his case in the said enquiry. 5. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. This Court while admitting the writ petition by order in W.P.M.P.No.37149 of 2008 dated 26.12.2008 suspended the operation of the impugned order. It is stated that by virtue of the said order, the petitioner has been running the shop. That being so any disturbance at this point of time would cause dislocation of distribution of commodities causing inconvenience to the public.. Instead, it is appropriate that the enquiry itself should be completed within a time frame. 6. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. In the mean while, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained during the pendency of the enquiry. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th November, 2010 Js.