APHC010208562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10807/2025 Between: 1. RAVIPATI KONDAIAH, S/O. LATE ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0813022, R/O. D. NO. 2-9, SANNANTHAPUDI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, KANIGIRI DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, A.P. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, , DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10807/2025 RAVIPATI KONDAIAH, S/O. LATE ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0813022, 9, SANNANTHAPUDI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, KANIGIRI DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, A.P. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM THE TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, , YERRAOBANAPALLI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA RAVIPATI KONDAIAH, S/O. LATE ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0813022, 9, SANNANTHAPUDI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, A.P. KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM THE TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, YERRAOBANAPALLI VILLAGE, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings Vide Rc.E/495/2025, dated 15.04.2025, in suspending the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No. 0813022 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same, and pass IA 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 pleased suspend the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings with Vide Rc.E/495/2025, dated 15.04.2025, and to continue the Petitioner as Fair Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No. 0813022, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ROHITH PALLEPAGA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.10807 of 2025 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 action of the 3rdrespondent in issuing proceedings Vide Rc.E/495/2025, dated 15.04.2025 in suspending the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P. Shop No.0813022 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the sameand to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.0813022 on 16.07.2024 at Samanthapudi Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. While the matter being so, on 17.03.2025 at about 7:00 P.M., the respondent Nos.5 & 6 have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and as they have not found any variation in the stock, they went away quietly without providing any information to the petitioner. On the very next day i.e. on 18.03.2025, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner through Andhra Jyothi Newspaper that fraudulently a case has been filed against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner went to Darsi Police Station and he has come to know that he was fraudulently implicated as accused No.2 in Crime No.42/2025, which was registered under Sections 318(4) 4 r/w 3(5) BNS and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, he made a representation to the respondent Nos.3 & 4 herein on 20.03.2025. But, the same was not considered by them, as the respondent Nos.3 & 4 were hand in glove with the political leaders. 4. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein by conspiring with some political leaders has issued the proceedings dated 15.04.2025 bearing Rc.E/495/2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop stating that on 17.03.2025 at about 4:30 A.M., they found the petitioner was transporting the PDS rice to the tune of 855 Kgs in Piaggio Ace Three Wheeler Goods Carriage bearing No.AP 39X 9575 with the help of Sripathi Kotaiah, who is an Auto Driver-cum-Owner and they were doing business with PDS rice secretly by diverting them to black market for their personal gains. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent issued a suspension order on 15.04.2025, without even considering the representation submitted by the petitioner on 20.03.2025. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.04.2025, explaining all the original facts. Though the statutory period of suspension of 90 days have been elapsed, the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 5 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the order of suspension has been in force for more than 90 days, till date, the enquiry has not been commenced and concluded. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, stated that simultaneously, on 16.04.2025, a show cause notice bearing Rc.E/495/2025 was issued to the petitioner, calling for an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice and also provided an opportunity of final hearing on 25.04.2025 at 11:00 A.M. and the petitioner attended the same and submitted his explanation. Presently, the case is under process and the same will be closed in due course, as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. It is also admitted in the instructions that the enquiry has not been concluded in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 16.04.2025. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has further stated that the respondents did not commit any error in passing the impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 10. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, 6 Kurnool and others1. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No.13 as extracted herein under: 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) APLJ 266 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 otherwise 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 Revisionary authority. 11. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, the respondents therein preferred appeal viz., Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima2 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, while agreeing with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment referred 1st supra, held as follows: 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 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 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. 12. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 15.04.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period and even after an elapse of 90 days, there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case within 90 days i.e. within the “reasonable period”, this Court affirms that that the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 15.04.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 13. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 15.04.2025 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in 8 accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 19.08.2025 MDP