APHC010274992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 13564/2025 Between: 1. KOTTAKKI RANGA NAYAK PATNYKU, S/O K.V.A SURYANARAYANA, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O KOTTAKKI VILLAGE, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIYANAGARAM DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR CS, VIZIYANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BOBBIN DIVISION, VIZIYANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, VIZIYANAGARAM, TOWN AND DISTRICT 5. TAHSILDAR, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL VIZIYANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT, KOTTAKKI VILLAGE, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIYANAGARAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.340/2025/A, dt. 29-04-2025 thereby suspended the authorization of my Fair Price Shop F.P Shop No 0213011 situated in Kottakki village Ramabhdrapuram Mandal of Viziyanagaram District, passed by the 3rd respondent thereby suspended the authorization of the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.0213011 situated in Kottakki Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Viziyanagaram District, without conducting enquiry, without issuing show cause and without recording reasons for suspension of authorization as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedingsRc.No.340/2025/A, dt. 29-04-2025 and direct the respondents particularly respondents to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders and to pass such 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 may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.340/2025/A, dt. 29-04- 2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 , 3 and 5 to continue me as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 0213011 situated in Kottakki Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Viziyanagaram District, by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is 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 proceedings in Rc.No.340/2025/A, dated 29.04.2025 thereby suspending the authorization of petitoner’s Fair Price Shop No.0213011 situated in Kottakki village, Ramabhdrapuram Mandal of Viziyanagaram District, passed by the 3rd, without conducting enquiry, without issuing show cause notice and without recording any reasons for suspension of authorization, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted (Public Distribution System) Control Order 2018 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the proceedings Rc.No.340/2025/A dated 29.04.2025 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Fair price shop by supplying essential commodities every month for distribution to cardholders …” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he being an employee in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kottakki Village, was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0213011 of Kottaki Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal of Vizianagaram District by the 2nd respondent from 2019 and the said authorization was extended from time to time and is subsisting till 31.03.2025. 3. Initially, the 6th respondent, who is a member of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, was appointed as the dealer for running the Fair Price Shop No.0213011 of Kottaki Village. When the said society is not willing to run the shop, the 2nd respondent appointed the petitioner, who is an employee of the said society, and since then, the petitioner has been running the said Fair 4 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 Price Shop without there being any adverse remarks or complaints either from the cardholders or from the respondent authorities. 4. While the matter being so, due to change of Government in the State of Andhra Pradesh and due to local village political pressure, the 3rd respondent has issued a notice, vide, Rc.No.22/2025/A dated Nil.01.2025, basing upon a complaint made by one of the villagers and directed the petitioner to appear before him on 18.01.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and submitted explanation. The petitioner also submitted an application along with challan for Rs.500/- on 25.02.2025 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh Civil Supplies Department for renewal of the petitioner’s authorization. But, surprisingly, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice, dated 29.04.2025, suspending the petitioner’s authorization on the sole ground that the District Cooperative Society and the Divisional Cooperative Society did not pass any resolution in his favour before granting the licence. Except that, there are no irregularities alleged as against the petitioner in the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders. It is the contention of the petitioner that without conducting any enquiry or without call for any explanation and also without recording any reasons for suspension of authorization, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings, dated 29.04.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner obtained false authorization by misrepresentation of orders in the name of the Primary Agricultural Society, as if it was in his name, since he had been working as temporary salesman in that society. There are no proceedings either in the office of the Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram or in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bobbili (newly formed Division in 2022) for change of allotment in the name of petitioner instead of the Primary Agricultural Society, Kottakki Village of Ramabhadrapuram Mandal. The District Cooperative Officer and Divisional Cooperative Officer, Vizianagaram, in their report stated that originally the shop was allotted in the name of PACS Kottakki and was later transferred in the name of the petitioner without passing any resolution by the PACS. At present, an enquiry is going on regarding this allotment. Until then, temporary arrangements have been made by allotting Fair Price Shop 0213011 to the adjacent dealer for distribution of stocks under Public Distribution System (PDS) to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 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, enquiry has not been commenced and concluded. 6 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has submitted that the respondents did not commit any error in passing the impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. It is the primary contention of the petitioner that since the date of suspension, 90 days has been lapsed, but till date enquiry was not concluded by the authorities. 10. As the enquiry was not completed within 90 days from the date of suspension, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1 , wherein a Division Bench 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 11. In the present case also, though the impugned order was passed on 29.04.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period and even after lapse of 90 days, there is no commencement of operation of enquiry against the petitioner. 12. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments and in the considered opinion of this Court, since the enquiry is not completed by the Respondents in the present case within the “reasonable period” i.e. 90 days, this Court affirms that that the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order, 29.04.2025 is liable to be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 13. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order, dated 29.04.2025 issued against the petitioner, restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. However, it is needless to mention that this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in accordance with the law uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. The respondents are further directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 VS,J W.P.No.13564 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :01.09.2025. KGR