IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6591 OF 2025 Between: Nimmala Veera Kumari, W/o.China Yellaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ:Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0785032, ward No.28, Chilakaluripet Town, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Palnadu District, Narasaraopet, A.P. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, A.P. 4. The Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Palnadu District, A.P. 5. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet, Palnadu District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent in issuing proceedings bearing Rc.1953/2024-G, dated:01-11-2024 wherein placed the authorization of the petitioner FP Shop No.0785032 of 28'^ Ward, Chilakaluripet Town, Palnadu District under suspension pending enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and more rd the 3 consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to allot the commodities to the FP Shop No.0785032 of 28*'^ Ward, Chilakaluripet Town, Palnadu District and permit the petitioner to distribute the same to the cardholders through MDU operator pending enquiry. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.0785032 of 28*^ Ward, Chilakaluripet Town, Palnadu District by suspending the impugned suspension order bearing Rc.1953/2024-G, dated:01-11-2024 issued by the 3'"^ respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER \ APHC010122772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 0*0 [3459] 0^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6591/2025 Between: Nimmala Veera Kumari ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT The State of AP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KAVITHAGOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.- The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one In the nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3 respondent in issuing proceedings bearing Rc.No.1953/2024-G, dated 01.11.2024 wherein placed the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No. 0785032 of 28^^ ward, Chilakaluripet Town, Palnadu District under suspension pending enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to allot the commodities to the fair price shop No. 0785032 and permit the petitioner to distribute the same to the cardholders through MDU operator pending enquiry and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” rd 2 2. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a fair price th shop dealer for the last 20 years. On the report submitted by the 5 respondent, the respondent issued charge sheet on 19.10.2024 calling for explanation. Now the 3^"^ respondent, without considering the explanation, dated 25.10.2024, suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop, which was issued against the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner averts that the respondents have not concluded the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be revoked and further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool and others^. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No. 13 as extracted hereinunder; 13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation of the authorisation, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by Supreme Court In the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days 1996 (1) APU 266 3 h. is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or othenA/lse of the authorisation. If for any reason the enquiry Is not completed within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension Is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the appointing authority or the Appellate authority or the Revislonary authority. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents therein, and while disposing the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^, a Division Bench of this High Court observed at para 5. No.2 as extracted hereinunder: 2. We have gone through the Impugned judgment which Is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1982 (S.C.), 1965. In that case, the prescribed form of licence contained the clause for the period of suspension to be maximum for 90 days. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that In essence and substance what was meant by him Is that the period of 90 days Is a reasonable period to conclude the enquiry and the continuance of It beyond 90 days would be unreasonable and shall be, hence, taken as quashed. As we see It was in the nature of a direction to complete the enquiry within 90 days than laying down a general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension could be only for 90 days. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of suspension cannot be used as a pretext for Indefinite postponement of the operation of the fair price shop dealership making it in effect cancellation of the dealership. An order of suspension, like every executive and administrative act, has to be founded upon fair play and lack of arbitrariness. The continuation of order of the suspension indefinitely is whole arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. But must also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension will vary from case to case depending upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. we 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 4 6. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench, as extracted supra, this Court is of considered opinion that as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 90 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 3'^'^ respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 01.11.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2"^^ respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 01.11.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization 7. of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall SDI- G SRINIVAS REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Palnadu District, Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District Pradesh. Andhra 3 4. The Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Chilakaluripet, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh. One CC to Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 5. ,/ / 6. 7. \, 8. gi HIGH COURT DATED: 18/03/2025 ORDER ANDW^ X 21 HM *25 ^ . Current Section WP.No.6591 of 2025 rni ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS