JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, we are disposing of this petition finally in view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass in this case. 2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Ballia suspending the agency of the petitioner for distribution of Government Foodgrains and other essential articles under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1990. The impugned order simply states that an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner, true copy of which has been annexed to this petition as Annexure-4. After stating this fact and without more, the District Supply Officer has suspended the petitioner's licence. 3. Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the law does not contemplate passing of a suspension order on the mere ground that an FIR had been lodged against erring dealer on the ground that he has violated certain provisions of the Distribution Order or the terms of the agency or authorisation. In support, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8904 of 1991 Om Prakash v. State of U.P. judgment dated 19.3.1991. 4. We are, however, at present making no comment on the merits of the petitioner's contention nor even on the decision cited which was as well be apparent, concerned with the scheme of an altogether different statute, viz. U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989. The decision turned on the statutory scheme of the order. The present, however, is not a case governed by that statutory order. 5. The present petition can be disposed of on the submission of the learned counsel urged in the alternative. It was contended that impugned order has the effect of keeping the petitioner's agency in abeyance indefinitely. The District Supply Officer should, therefore, be directed to dispose of whatever administrative action he intends to take within a specified time-frame. 6. The learned counsel is right. We are clearly of the view that it will not be just and fair to allow the order of suspension to operate indefinitely. The criminal proceedings which have yet to be initiated on the basis of the FIR may take years. 6. The learned counsel is right. We are clearly of the view that it will not be just and fair to allow the order of suspension to operate indefinitely. The criminal proceedings which have yet to be initiated on the basis of the FIR may take years. To keep the agency suspended for all that duration will not be fair and proper. If, therefore, the District Supply Officer is proposing to take any administrative action against the petitioner on the basis of the irregularities alleged in the FIR such as cancellation of the agency, the same should be completed within one month of the date on which the petitioner submits his reply to the show cause notice. If the show cause notice has not already been issued by the District Supply Officer, and if he does decide to issue the same he should do it latest within one week of the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before him by issuing show cause notice against the petitioner. After the petitioner has been served with the show cause notice, the District Supply Officer shall finalise the proceedings and pass appropriate orders stating the reasons in support thereof within one month of the submission of the reply to the show cause notice. If on the other hand, he decides not to initiate proceedings for termination of the agency he shall revoke the order of suspension without delay. 7. With these directions, the petition is disposed of finally. 8. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel on payment of requisite charges by tomorrow.