APHC010230092019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10187/2019 Between: 1. P VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE CHINA VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGE 57 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.0982056 (UNDER SUSPENSION) R/O FLAT NO.6, BALAJI SUN SHINE APARTMENT CHILDREN PARK ROAD, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE DIST. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DIST. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, NELLORE MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST. 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 toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order is proceedings vide Rc.B.221/2019 dt 27 of the petitioner's FP Shop of Shop NO.0982056, Nellore Town and Mandal of SPSR Nellore Dist., is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of justice and consequently set aside the said order and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a FP Shop dealer as usual and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10187/2019 P VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE CHINA VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGE 57 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.0982056 (UNDER SUSPENSION) R/O FLAT NO.6, BALAJI SUN SHINE APARTMENT CHILDREN PARK ROAD, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE THE TAHSILDAR, NELLORE MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): le 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings vide Rc.B.221/2019 dt 27-6-2019 Suspending the authorization of the petitioner's FP Shop of Shop NO.0982056, Nellore Town and Mandal of SPSR Nellore Dist., is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of justice and consequently set aside the said order and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a FP Shop dealer as usual and to pass 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA P VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE CHINA VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGE 57 YEARS, OCC FP SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.0982056 (UNDER SUSPENSION) R/O FLAT NO.6, BALAJI SUN SHINE APARTMENT CHILDREN PARK ROAD, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE THE TAHSILDAR, NELLORE MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): le 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature sued by the 2nd respondent in his 2019 Suspending the authorization of the petitioner's FP Shop of Shop NO.0982056, Nellore Town and Mandal of SPSR Nellore Dist., is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a FP Shop dealer as usual and to pass that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 2 pleased to Suspend the operation of the Order issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings vide Rc.B.221/2019 dt:27-6-2019, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 to vaca the interim orders dated 31.07.20 made in W.P. No.10187/2019 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M MM SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition was 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings vide Rc.B.221/2019 dated 27.06.2019 suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s FP Shop of Shop NO.0982056, Nellore Town and Mandal of SPSR Nellore Dist., is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a FP shop dealer as usual and to pass such other order or orders which are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0982056 of Nellore Town & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint from any of the card holders. 3. While the matter being so, on 15.06.2019, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Kovvur, along with the Enforcement and Revenue Officials, inspected the Subramaneswara Raw & Boiled Rice Mill situated at Allipuram Village, Nellore Rural Mandal of SPSR Nellore District. The authorities have found that the rice miller has been conducting illegal business by storing and transporting PDS rice. During the preparation of the panchanama, the driver of Magic Auto bearing No.AP 26 TV 0846 has given a statement that he loaded the PDS rice from the petitioner’s shop on 15.06.2019 at early hours and basing on the said statement, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Nellore (urban) has inspected the petitioner’s shop on the same date at about 4 7:30 P.M., and verified the physical stock and compared with the e-PoS machine distribution date, release order issued by MLS point in-charge and closing balance e-PoS machine. On verification, the inspecting officials have not found any variation between the physical stock and closing stock and submitted the report to the District Supply Officer on 16.06.2019. The said report discloses that the petitioner is no way concerned with the diversion of the PDS rice. In spite of the same, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned suspension order dated 27.06.2019. Challenging which, the present writ petition was filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 31.07.2019, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim order: “Having regard to the report of CSDT, Kovvur, the impugned order in Rc.B.221/2019 dated 27.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 suspending the authorization of the fair price shop of the petitioner for a period of 90 days, is stayed.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 31.07.2019, the petitioner has been continuing as a dealer of the said fair price shop. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 7. As per the report submitted to the District Supply Officer on 16.06.2019, it can be seen that, during the course of inspection on the said 5 date, on verification of the physical stocks with the e-PoS machine distribution data, no variations were found between the physical stock and closing stock of the e-PoS machine. When there was no variation in the stock available in the petitioner’s shop during the course of inspection, the question of connecting the petitioner with the alleged PDS rice found in the Subramaneswara Raw & Boiled Rice Mill cannot arise. Even otherwise, the said impugned proceedings have been passed basing on the report of the Tahsildar and as well as the statement given by the auto driver. Even otherwise, no enquiry has been commenced and concluded within a period of 90 days. 8. 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 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 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 6 by the appointing authority or the Appellate authority or the Revisionary authority. 9. 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 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. 10. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2019, suspending the authorization of the petitioner for a period of 90 days and even after an elapse of 90 days, there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner. In the light 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 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 2nd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 27.06.2019 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 11. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 27.06.2019 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 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: 10.09.2025 MDP