JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Mishra, J Challenging the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.17919 of 2021, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed. 2. In this intra-Court appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner would call in question the order passed by the learned single Judge, wherein while refusing to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority on 11.08.2021, suspending the authorization of the appellant/writ petitioner to run the Fair Price shop No.0819001 of Yaddanapudi village and Mandal, Prakasam District, the learned single Judge has issued directions to the respondent No.3 to complete the final enquiry initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner as per the provisions of Clause 8(4) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short “Control Order”) to prove the charges made against the appellant/writ petitioner by giving full and fair opportunity to the appellant/writ petitioner to defend his case, and the enquiry is directed to be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner argues that the learned single Judge should have allowed the appellant/writ petitioner to run the Fair Price shop during the pendency of the enquiry. She would specifically refer to Clause 20 of the Control Order to argue that before passing an order of suspension, the authority is enjoined to make an enquiry under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order, which having not been done before passing of the impugned order, a strong case for allowing the appellant/writ petitioner to run the Fair Price shop is made out. 4. Having seen the order dated 11.08.2021, by which the licence of the Fair Price shop allotted to the appellant/writ petitioner has been suspended, pending enquiry, it appears the officials of the concerned department made a surprise inspection of the Fair Price shop and made some enquiry, wherein the allegation of siphoning of the essential commodities was found prima facie sufficient for proceeding further to make an enquiry under Clause 8(4) of the Control Order. This having been done, the mandate of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order has been sufficiently complied with. Therefore, we find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. This having been done, the mandate of Clause 8(4) of the Control Order has been sufficiently complied with. Therefore, we find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. At the same time, it is important to note that if the subject shop is allotted afresh to any other individual, the same shall create complication and appellant/writ petitioner’s right would be violated, if eventually it is found that the charges against the appellant/writ petitioner are not proved, and therefore, instead of fresh allotment it would be appropriate to attach the subject Fair Price shop to any other Fair Price shop during pendency of the enquiry. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the competent authority not to make any fresh allotment of the subject Fair Price shop and the same shall remain attached to any other Fair Price shop, during pendency of the enquiry against the appellant/writ petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.