HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22448 of 2006 Date : 27.09.2011 Between : Padala Pratap. …..Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector, Medak & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22448 of 2006 ORDER : The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer in Pidched village of Gajwel Mandal in Medak District. On allegations that the rice supplied by the petitioner to the primary school of Ragatlapalli was not fit for consumption and there was also a representation from the cardholders that the petitioner is selling the commodities at higher rates than prescribed, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by impugned order dated 23rd of October 2006, issued in Proceedings No.B/2125/2006, suspended his authorization pending detailed inquiry into the allegations. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim order as early as on 30th of October 2006, and it is in force since then. It is the case of the petitioner that rice was supplied to the primary school in the month of July 2006 and as it was not stored with proper care, it was damaged, and hence, the same cannot be attributed to him. It is further pleaded that he had been selling the commodities of rice, sugar and kerosene at the prescribed rates and that the allegations levelled against him are politically motivated, so as to deprive his authorization on one ground or the other. The impugned order is only an order of suspension pending inquiry. Whether the petitioner has supplied the rice that was not fit for consumption or whether such rice was damaged after supplying to the school, is a matter of inquiry. Even with regard to the alleged selling of commodities at higher rates than prescribed, except the representation made by certain cardholders, there is no other evidence. As much as the impugned order is an order of suspension, which is suspended by this Court as early as on 30th of October 2006, which order is continued all along, and in view of pendency of inquiry, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, to complete the inquiry initiated against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, if not already completed. Further, the impugned order of suspension, dated 23rd October 2006, issued in Proceedings No.B/2125/2006, shall remain suspended till appropriate orders are passed after completion of inquiry. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th September 2011 ajr