Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings No.B1/5020/2012, dated 13.12.2012 of respondent No.1, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s fair price shop authorisation relating to Chityal Village, Tadwai Mandal of Nizamabad District. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s authorisation was suspended on the purported ground that he has contravened the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008. The Order reads as under: “The ASO, Kamareddy Division has inspected the F.P. Shop No.08 of F.P.Shop dealer Sri Puli Sailu S/o Veeraiah, Chityal Village of Tadwai Mandal on 11.12.2012 and reported that the dealer has contravened the provisions of APS PDS control order 2008 and conditions of authorization. Since, there is reason to believe that Sri Puli Sailu S/o Veeraiah, F.P.Shop dealer No.08 has contravened the provision of conditions of authorization and Clause 17(c) of AP State Public Distribution System Control Orders 2008 the following available stocks have been seized and handed over to Sri S.N.Rao, VRO, Chityal Village of Tadwai Mandal. 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances the authorization of Sri Puli Sailu, S/o Veeraiah, F.P.Shop dealer No.08 is hereby suspended pending enquiry. 4. To avoid inconvenience to the cardholders of F.P.Shop No.08 the households supply cards tagged on to M.Savitha, F.P.Shop dealer of Shop No.36, Chityal Village, Tadwai Mandal with immediate effect.” 5. As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, the nature of contraventions has not been indicated in the impugned order. As the order of suspension visits the dealer with serious adverse consequences, it is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to indicate, at least in brief, the nature of contraventions on which he found it necessary to suspend the authorisation. Failure on the part of respondent No.1 to refer to the alleged contraventions in the impugned order, thus vitiates the impugned order. 6. The impugned order is accordingly set aside on this short ground. Respondent No.1 is directed to allow the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer pending the enquiry. He is also directed to complete the enquiry and pass order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. Respondent No.1 is directed to allow the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer pending the enquiry. He is also directed to complete the enquiry and pass order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. As a sequel to allowing the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.9311 of 2013, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.