APHC010316012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16165/2025 Between: 1. M MADHUSUDHAN GOWD, S/O M.RAMAKRISHNA GOWD, AGE 51 YEARS, OCCFAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O D.NO.1-117, KOTHAPETA COLONY, VEMPENTA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 3 ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 respondent in suspending the authorisation of petitioners Fair Price Shop No.1314017 of Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu rd Mandal, Nandyal District vide Proceedings Rc.C/619/2024, dated 22-04-2024, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Contrtol Orders 2018 and consequently direct the 2 respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.1314017 of Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District 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 to suspend the impugend proceedings of the 3 respondent vide Proceedings Rc.C/619/2024, dated 22-04-2024, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. U RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.16165 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 respondent in suspending the authorisation of petitioners Fair Price Shop No.1314017 of Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu rd Mandal, Nandyal District vide Proceedings Rc.C/619/2024, dated 22-04-2024, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Contrtol Orders 2018 and consequently direct the respondents to supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.1314017 of Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District and pass….” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer for the shop No.1314017 of Vempenta village, Pamulapadu mandal, Nandyal district vide proceedings dated 23.10.2010 by the 3rd respondent and the same was extended from time to time. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 10.03.2025, the officials of the 4th respondent conducted inspection over the petitioner’s shop and alleged that there is variation of stocks of 3308 kilograms of PDS rice, 649 kilograms of jowar and 23 kilograms of sugar in the actual ground balance. After conducting panchanama, the respondent officials have submitted a report to the 4th respondent, who has recommended to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 02.04.2025 calling for an explanation of the petitioner, for which, the 4 petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 16.04.2025 requesting to stop all further proceedings by considering it as his first mistake. But, in spite of the same, the 3rd respondent has passed the present impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2024, suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 5. 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. 6. The 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. 7. 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 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 5 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 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. 8. 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 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 9. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 22.04.2024 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 22.04.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 10. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 22.04.2024 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 11.08.2025. Gss