!} IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 11925 OF 2025 AMARAVATI Between: Chejerla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Subbaiah, Shop Dealer, Shop. No. 0845021, Machavaram Village, Nagalluppalapad Mandal, Prakasam District Age 58 years, FP u ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Supplies, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, 3. The Collector(CS), Prakasam District, Ongole 4. The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies, Collectorate, Prakasam District 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District 6. The Tahsildar, Nagalluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam 7. The Addl. Food Inspector, Ongole, Prakasam District Civil Ongole Ongole-523001 District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue a Writ, Order India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, to declaring the in action of 5th respondent-R.D.O.. Ongole, who has not conclude disciplinary days IS completed, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the Judgments of this Hon'ble High Court proceedings even though 90 ' spirit of and also against the mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction authorization of petitioner and consequentiy to direct the respondents continue the petitioner as FP Shop deaier, Shop Machavaram Viiiage, Nagailuppaiapadu Mandal and directed the respondents to restore the to No.0845021 of Prakasam District. LA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to direct learned Commodities to petitioner, CPC praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court ' R D.O., Ongole ( 5 may be respondent), to allot pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALAPATI VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010221722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 11925/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Chejerla Srinivasa Rao, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 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 particulariy one in the nature of Mandamus, to deciaring the in action of 5th respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who has not conclude disciplinary proceedings even though 90 days is completed, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and also against the mandatory provisions of Control Crders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and directed the respondents to restore the authorization of petitioner and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop No.0845021 of Machavaram Village, Nagalluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam . » t District, and pass such orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader, have consented for disposal of the writ petition. 2. On perusal of record, it is observed that though the authorization was suspended on 30.11.2024, the respondents have not concluded the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be revoked in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^ Para No.2 of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court is extracted hereunder; 3. “2. We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pa! 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 In the light of the observations of the Division Bench as 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 5*'' respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 30.11.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the 4. petitioner shall be restored. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 5*'^ respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 30.11.2024 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 5. costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRlNiVAS assistant registrar Iw SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole 3. The Collector(CS), Prakasam District, Ongole 4. The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies, Collectorate, Ongole-523001, Prakasam District 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District 6. The Tahsildar, Nagalluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District 7. The Addl. Food Inspector, Ongoie, Prakasam District 8. One CC to Sri Alapati Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 3^ % ORDER 2" -X 2«J'JL m m, *s WP.No.11925 of 2025 ^ Currem Saction DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS