L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is working as a fair price shop dealer of Ward No. 3 of yemmigannur Village, Kumool District. The 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 14-12-2004 to the petitioner, directing him to explain as to why his authorization should not be suspended in view of the allegations contained therein. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24-12-2004. On consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 19-1-2005 suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent together with an application for stay. Through his order, dated 1-2-2005, the 1st respondent rejected the stay application. Hence, this writ petition. ( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. ( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent meticulously followed the procedure prescribed under section 5 (4) of the A. P. State Public distribution Control Order, 2001 (for short the Control Order ) in proceeding against the petitioner. He issued a show-cause notice framing certain charges against the petitioner and directed him to explain as to why his authorization should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The 2nd respondent has undertaken extensive discussion in relation to charges and recorded his own findings. However, when it came upto the question of imposing the punishment, he simply suspended the authorization of the petitoiner without indicating the period therefor. ( 4 ) THE Control Order contemplates two types of substantive punishments against the dealer viz. , the suspension and the cancellation of authorization. It is mandatory to issue show-cause notice before any such punishments are inflicted. It is only a suspension pending enquiry that need not precede enquiry. ( 5 ) BY its very nature, the suspension, by way of substantive punishment, is required to be for a particular period. It is true that the Control Order does not stipulate the period for which the authorization of a dealer can be suspended by way of penalty. However, it has to be inferred that the suspension has to be for a specified period and such period has to be indicated by the appointing authority, depending on the gravity of the matter. There does not exist any scope for imposing the punishment of suspension for an indefinite period. However, it has to be inferred that the suspension has to be for a specified period and such period has to be indicated by the appointing authority, depending on the gravity of the matter. There does not exist any scope for imposing the punishment of suspension for an indefinite period. ( 6 ) IT is true that the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal and the 1st respondent rejected the application for stay. However, the basic infirmity that has been pointed out above can be rectified by the 2nd respondent alone. The 1st respondent cannot substitute his opinion for that of the 2nd respondent nor can he uphold the suspension for an indefinite period. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, indicating the period for which the suspension against the petitioner shall operate. In case no orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, the suspension against the petitioner shall be confined to a period of two months and on expiry of the same, the petitioner shall be entitled to function as dealer. The further steps shall depend on the outcome of the same. ( 8 ) IN view of the order passed above, the appeal preferred before the 1st respondent becomes infructuous and no orders are need to be passed therein. Fhere shall be no order as to costs.