ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “……..to issue an order or orders or a direction or a writ more in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the order Ref. No.1(4)/1322/2019 dated 12.11.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent suspending the authorization/ dealership of the petitioner’s FP shop No.1115122, Vivek Nagar, Kothapalli post, Proddutur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District without concluding the enquiry and mentioning the period of suspension is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for shop No.1115122, Vivek Nagar, Proddutur Mandal, by setting aside the order dated 12.11.2019 and to pass such other order or orders……” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair shop dealer on permanent basis for Shop No. 111512, Vivek Nagar, Proddatur Mandal, by the 4th respondent on 03.02.2009, vide proceedings Ref. No. B/1587/2008, and she operated the shop without any complaints. The petitioner filed an application for the renewal of the license for the period 2019-2021 by paying the requisite fee through challan No. 39247, dated 22.03.2018. On 19.10.2019, the 6th respondent visited the fair shop of the petitioner along with the VRA and VRO and asked the petitioner to sign a blank white paper, stating that it was an acknowledgment of their visit. However, on 21.10.2019, when the petitioner went to the 5th respondent along with a demand draft for the indent for the next month, the 5th respondent refused to accept it stating that the petitioner had to hand over the stocks to the staff of the 5th respondent. b. It appears that the 5th respondent had forwarded a report to the 3rd respondent on 20.10.2019 by filling the blank signed white paper. The petitioner received orders, vide Ref. No. 1(4)/1322/ 2019, dated 12.11.2019, suspending the dealership of the petitioner until the completion of the disciplinary case, without specifying a period of suspension. Despite lapse of five years since the date of suspension, the authorities have not concluded the enquiry and have continued the distribution of commodities through the VRO against the law. 4. No. 1(4)/1322/ 2019, dated 12.11.2019, suspending the dealership of the petitioner until the completion of the disciplinary case, without specifying a period of suspension. Despite lapse of five years since the date of suspension, the authorities have not concluded the enquiry and have continued the distribution of commodities through the VRO against the law. 4. This court had directed the authorities to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable period of 90 days, but they did not follow the dictum of the Court. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12242 of 2021, the High Court directed all the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 90 days. However, no action has been taken till date. According to Clause 20(i) of the Control Order 2018, two reports are required for disciplinary action, as observed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 500 of 2020. In the present case, the suspension order dated 12.11.2019 refers to only one report, making the order contrary to the provisions mentioned above. Moreover, the suspension order cannot be extended for a period beyond 90 days, irrespective of filing the appeal over the suspension order. Under these circumstances, having no alternative and effective remedy, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. On written instructions, vide Reference No. A/308/2024, dated 01.08.2024, of the Tahsildar (FAC), Proddatur Mandal, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that on 19.10.2019, when the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar of Proddatur, along with the Food Inspector, visited the petitioner’s shop. They found the following variations in the stock: Sl . No. Name of the commodity OB Receipts for Sep,19 Total Stocks distributed CB as per ePos Physical stock Variation 1 Rice 4287.730 5946.999 10234.729 4501.705 5733.023 100.000 (-)5633.023 2 Sugar 155.475 177.000 332.475 165.499 166.975 000.000 (-)166.975 3 RG Dal 0.965 400.000 400.965 311.399 89.565 000.000 (-)89.565 4 Raggi 660.35 1200.000 1860.345 882.669 977.675 000.000 (-)977.675 5 Jowar 1.410 000.000 1.410 000.000 1.410 000.000 (-)1.410 6. He further submits that a panchanama was conducted on the commodities, which were handed over to the Village Revenue Officer, Kothapalle-II, who was put in charge of Proddatur until further orders. He further submits that, based on the report submitted to the Joint Collector, YSR District, Kadapa, an inquiry was initiated, and the dealership of the petitioner was suspended. He further submits that a panchanama was conducted on the commodities, which were handed over to the Village Revenue Officer, Kothapalle-II, who was put in charge of Proddatur until further orders. He further submits that, based on the report submitted to the Joint Collector, YSR District, Kadapa, an inquiry was initiated, and the dealership of the petitioner was suspended. Alternative arrangements were made for the distribution of commodities to the cardholders through a temporary fair price shop dealer appointed during the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. He further submits that the petitioner has not filed an appeal against the order of the Joint Collector, even after a lapse of five years, and requests that the writ petition be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision for an appeal against the suspension order under the Control Order 2018. He further submits that a suspension order cannot be extended for an indefinite period. Additionally, he states that, even to this day, no temporary dealer has been appointed and the distribution of commodities is being carried out through the Village Revenue Officer, as evidenced by the details available on the website, which are undisputed. 8. Irrespective of any pending proceedings against the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner’s dealership for such a long period of more than 4½ years is illegal in view of the decisions in B. Manjula Vs. District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others, 2015 (4) ALT 572 , Pidikiti Sailaja Vs. State of A.P., 2015(2) ALT 667 and C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2015(6) ALD 359 . If any proceedings for an inquiry had been initiated, they would have been mentioned in the written instructions. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no show cause notice has been issued, nor has any charge sheet been served on the petitioner so far. Therefore, no inquiry has been initiated. 9. Under these circumstances, it is very much clear that the impugned proceedings of the suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership for an indefinite period is illegal and cannot be allowed to continue any further. It is open for the authorities to proceed against the petitioner as per the law, if permitted. 10. 9. Under these circumstances, it is very much clear that the impugned proceedings of the suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop dealership for an indefinite period is illegal and cannot be allowed to continue any further. It is open for the authorities to proceed against the petitioner as per the law, if permitted. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 12.11.2019, with the liberty aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.