THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28009 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Rajia Sultana, W/o. Sri M.A. Salim Khan, R/o. Timmapur, Khanapur Mandal, Adilabad District. …. PETITIONER And 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Division, Nirmal, Adilabad District, and another. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri V.Ch.Naidu 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 shop No.10 situated at Thimmapur, Khanapur Mandal, Adilabad District, has filed this writ petition questioning the order of the 1st respondent, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal Division, Nirmal, Adilabad District, in Proc.No.C/2737/2008, dated 5.12.2008, suspending his authorization until further orders. 2. It appears that the Tahsildar, Khanapur Mandal submitted a report stating that a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) has been initiated against the petitioner on 29.12.2008 alleging certain discrepancies in the issue register and the stock register with reference to ground balance of the essential commodities. Based on the said report, the 1st respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner under the impugned order. 3. Heard Sri M.V.S. Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri V.CH. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 4. A perusal of the order shows that the 1st respondent has not even adverted to the allegations against the petitioner and examined whether suspension of the authorization pending enquiry was required. Be that as it may, this Court while admitting the writ petition, by order in W.P.M.P.No.36710 of 2008 dated 23.12.2008, suspended the operation of the said order. It is stated that by virtue of the said interim 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. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the enquiry itself should be completed within a time frame. 5. The 1st respondent is therefore directed to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner 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. Pending the enquiry, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th November, 2010 Js.