APHC010261732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13324 OF 2025 Between: Devireddy Sankaramma, Wib.Venkateswarlu, aged about 43 years, Dealer of F.P.Shop No.0832024, Kutagundia Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 4. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District ...Respondent(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3, in suspending the Dealership Authorization of the petitioner, through Proceedings No. Rc.E/415/2025, dated 11.03.2025, in respect of the Shop No.0832024, Kutagundia Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, contrary to Clause 29(a) of the Control Order, 2018, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the Proceedings No. Rc.E/415/2025, dated 11.03.2025, in respect of the Shop No.0832024, Kutagundia Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, iss|^ by the 3rd Respondent, by directing the Respondents to supply the commoities to the petitioner, in respect of the Shop No.0832024, Kutaguhdia ''Ifllage; Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings No. Rc.E/415/2025, dated 11.03.2025, in respect of the Shop No.0832024, Kutagundia Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, issued by the 3rd Respondent, by directing the Respondents to supply the commodities to the petitioner, in respect of the Shop No.0832024, Kutagundia Prakasam District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010261732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI WRIT PETITir>K| mq- 13324/2025 [3459] JAGADAM Between; Devireddy Sankaramma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1-GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: The limited grievance of the petitioner, in this Writ Petition, is that her Dealership Authorization in respect of Fair Price Shop No.0832024 of Kutagundia Village, Hanumanthunipadu Mandal and Prakasam District was suspended vide the impugned proceedings of the 3'^'^ respondent in Rc.E/415/2025, dated 11.03.2025, and even though three (3) months time is elapsed, the 3'”'^ respondent has not completed the enquiry till date and as such relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. NeeUma\ wherein at Para No.2 it was held as follows: “2. We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab {AIR 1982 (SC) 65}. In that case, the prescribed form of license 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 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing on behalf of the respondents, and perused the material available on record. 3. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima (1®^ supra), without going into merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, directing the respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before passing any final order and, if the 3"'^ respondent fails to complete the enquiry within the stipulated time, the 3'^ respondent shall restore the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0832024 and continue to supply the essential commodities to her fair price shop. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SOI- N NAGAMMA i; ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ! //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 4. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District 5. One CC to SRI. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 ORDER WP 13324/2025 g Vim 2025 S Current Section *// DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS