IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7467 OF 2025 Between: Gonuguntia Venkataswamy, S/o Raghavaiah, aged 68 years, Occ Fair Price Shop Dealer, Rfo Vaddemgunta village, BollapalliMandal, Palnadu District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. The Tahsildar, BollapalliMandal, Palnadu District. 2. 3. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.2536/2024- G dated 10-12-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 suspend the impugned order Rc.No.2536/2024-G dated 2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, 10-12- Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010125412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7467/2025 Between: Gonuguntia Venkataswamy ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.2536/2024-G, dated 10.12.2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide and pass such orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” The petitioner has been running a fair price shop for more than 2. 45 years. On 22.11.2024 the revenue officials conducted inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner and found variation of 265 kgs of 2 fortified rice. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 01.12.2024. 3. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that the 2'''' respondent, without communicating the show cause notice to the petitioner, issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not concluded the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days, and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be revoked. He 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^ wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held at para No. 13 as extracted hereunder; “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 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 1996 (1) APU 266 3 % otherwise of the authorisation, if for any reason the enquiry is not compieted within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension is iiabie to be revoked and shouid be revoked either by the appointing authority or the Appeiiate authority or the Revisionary authority. ’’ Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned Single 5. Judge, an appeal was preferred by the respondents therein, and while disposing of the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^, a Division Bench of this High Court observed at para No.2 as extracted hereunder: “2. 1/1/e have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pai 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 we 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. ” ^ 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 4 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the panchanama shows huge variation of fortified rice, and without availing the alternative remedy of appeal to the Joint Collector, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court. 7. On perusal of the record, it is observed that though the show cause notice was issued on 01.12.2024, the same was served to the petitioner on 08.12.2024 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 13.12.2024 which is within the stipulated period of seven days. However, the 2^^ respondent, without giving opportunity, has issued the impugned proceedings on 10.12.2024 which is nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench as 8. extracted supra, this Court is of the 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 2"^^ respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 10.12.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. ^ Vk_. 5 9. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2"^ respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 10.12.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization 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 stand closed. Sd/-G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of AP Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 2. 3. The Tahsildar, BollapalliMandal, Palnadu District. One CC to Sri. D Krishna Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 4. 5. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:24/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7467 of 2025 Cl 0 ^ m m 'ar Current Seetion ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS