JUDGMENT The proceedings in Rc.CS2/88/2013, dated 21.03.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s L.P.G. distribution licence by invoking the power under clause 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short, ‘the Control Order’), is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, Mr. K. Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that an order of suspension under Clause 28(1) of the Control Order can be resorted to only pending proceedings for cancellation of licence and that unless an enquiry has already been initiated, no order of suspension can be granted. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that on the same day on which show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner for cancellation of the distribution licence, the impugned order of suspension has been passed and that there is no bar on taking simultaneous action both for initiation of proceedings for cancellation and passing of an order of suspension of licence. Under Clause 28(1) of the Control Order, if the holder of the licence or his agent or servant or any person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms or conditions of the licence or the provisions of the Control Order, the licensing authority is empowered to cancel or suspend the same. Under Clause (2) thereof, pending action as envisaged under sub-clause (1), licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing order an interim suspension of the licence, registration certificate or supply card. A careful perusal of both these sub-clauses goes to show that the licensing authority can initiate action for suspension or cancellation and at the same time pending such action, he can suspend the licence as an interim measure. There is nothing in Clause 28 which prevents the licensing authority from initiating simultaneous action to suspend the licence as an interim measure contemporaneous with issuance of show cause notice for cancellation. In the instant case, on the same day respondent No.2 has issued the show cause notice for cancellation and also suspended the petitioner’s distribution licence. This action is therefore inconsonance with the scheme underlying Clause 28 of the Control Order and no interference therewith is called for. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested for a direction to respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate order within a reasonable time. This action is therefore inconsonance with the scheme underlying Clause 28 of the Control Order and no interference therewith is called for. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested for a direction to respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate order within a reasonable time. Considering the fact that the proceedings were initiated in March, 2013, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass a final order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.17462 of 2013 is dismissed as infructuous.