JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri P.C. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri S.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29.4.2015 and 16.1.2014 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. 3. vide order dated 16.1.2014 the respondent No. 4 has suspended the agreement to run the fair price shop of the petitioner whereas vide order dated 29.4.2015 the appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed with the direction to the Sub Divisional Officer to complete the enquiry within a period of one month fixing 20th May, 2015 for appearance of the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of extension of the due cooperation by the petitioner decision has not yet been taken and illegal suspension order is continuing. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner agreement cannot be suspended for an unlimited period. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(8) ADJ 645 (DB), wherein it has been held that in view of the Government Order which requires completion of the enquiry within one month, the agreement cannot be suspended for an indefinite period and the authorities are supposed to adhere to the requirement given in the Government Order. 5. In paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: “In our opinion, in the existing context the flow of frivolous litigation arising due to in-action or apathy on the part of the Government Officers when the enquiry is not being concluded within the time schedule perceived by the said Government Order, it is high time that this Court may, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, provide that in case the enquiry is not concluded within the time schedule contemplated under the relevant G.O., the suspension order shall automatically cease or shall be deemed revoked.” 6. Same view has been taken by this Court in Smt. Anshu Bharti v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(9) ADJ 355 and Bhupendra and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(10) ADJ 607 , although while dealing with the provisions of another Statute but on principle these judgments shall also be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case it would appear form the perusal of the record that the suspension order was passed way back on 16th January, 2014 and the petitioner has filed his reply on 27th January, 2014 but no final decision has yet been taken. The petitioner has also filed an appeal against the order of suspension in April, 2015 and the appellate authority has remitted the matter before the Sub Divisional Officer to pass a final order within a period of one month preferably by 20th May, 2015 after hearing the parties but even thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer has not passed any order. The petitioner in this regaqrd has also approached the Divisional Commissioner but the Sub Divisional Officer is sitting tight over the matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the law laid down by this Court in Shiv Raj Singh (supra) and other judgments, referred herein above, wherein it has been held that suspension cannot be passed for an indefinite period, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.1.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is hereby quashed with liberty to the State authorities to proceed in accordance with law. However, The Sub Divisional Officer can still complete the enquiry in view of the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order of suspension dated 16.1.2014. ———————