THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.17830 OF 2006 Between : D.Laxminarayana, S/o. Kashiram, F.P. Shop Dealer, No.583, Jalalpoor (V) Of Mandal Varni, Nizamabad District. …... PETITIONER And 1. The District Colletor, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, and others. …....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Balraj Bodhankar Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following. ORDER: Heard Sri Balraj Bodhankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner, a Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.583 of Jalalpur Village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District, has filed this writ petition against the orders of the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, in File No.E1/2729/2006, dated 28.07.2006, suspending the authorisation of the said fair price shop pending enquiry, as illegal. The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer in respect of Shop No.583 of Jalalpur Village, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District. The Grain Purchasing Assistant, Bodhan inspected the shop on 26.07.2006 and on physical verification found 1.30 qtls., of rice and 0.50 kgs of sugar as excess. Basing on the report the 4th respondent herein suspended the authorisation alleging contravention of the A.P. Schedule Commodities (Regulation and Distribution) by Card System Order, 1973 (for short ‘the Control Order’). It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations stated in the impugned order are false and politically motivated at the instance of his political rivals. He would state that there was no variation in the stock and that the alleged variation is trivial and within the permissible limits. He would further contend that the impugned order, which is purported to have been passed under the Control Order 1973, is not sustainable. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the impugned order is only interim in nature and a show cause notice dated 28.07.2006 has already been issued to the petitioner for conducting regular enquiry. He would contend that the Control Order 1973 cited is only a technical error and even the Control Order 2001, which was in force at that point of time, provides for similar power to the 4th respondent herein. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. It is true that in the impugned order, the Control Order 1973 has been cited, but the subsequent Control Order issued in 2001 also provides for power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has also initiated regular enquiry by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.07.2007 and that the said enquiry is still pending. This Court while admitting the writ petition, by orders in W.P.M.P.No.22363 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 while permitting the authorities to proceed with the enquiry as per the said show cause notice granted suspension of the operation of the impugned order, thus enabling the petitioner to run the shop. That being so, it is not appropriate to disturb distribution of commodities by giving effect to the impugned order at this length of time. Instead, the enquiry itself can be directed to be concluded within a time frame. In the above circumstances, the 4th respondent is directed to complete the enquiry initiated pursuant to the show cause notice No.E1/2729/2006, dated 28.07.2006 after giving due notice to the petitioner, 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. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till the conclusion of the enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th December, 2010 Js.