APHC010321602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16534/2025 Between: 1. SRI DUVVU APPANNA, S/O ENDODU, AGED 36 YRS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP , DUWUPETA GUNAPALEM, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKUIAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (CIVIL SUPPLIES), SECRETARIAT, VEIAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O., OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM. ...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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particulalry one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to Call for the Records pertaining to the impugned Proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent vide R.C.No.395/2025 CS dt.06-05-2025 served on 15-05- 2025 suspending the Petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.0120045 of Gara 2 VS,J W.P.No.16534 of 2025 Mandai, Srikakuiam there by stopped the suppiy of Food grains without conducting any enquiry nor foilowing the procedure of law as per the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, inspite of the petitoner's explanation dt.23-03-2025 to the show cause notice all are illegal , unlawful, violatoin of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of Rulings, Violation of Article 14,19,21 of the Quash the immpugned ConsequentlyConstitution of India, proceedings in R.C.No.395/2025 CS dt.06-05-2025 by Allowing the Writ Petition and to 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 Dispense with filing of the Original Imugned Order in R.C.No.395/2025 CS dt.06-05-2025 there by to permit the photo copy of the same or else I will be put to suffer a serious loss and hardship and pass IA NO: 2 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.16534 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particulalry one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to Call for the Records pertaining to the impugned Proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent vide R.C.No.395/2025 CS dt.06.05.2025 served on 15.05.2025 suspending the Petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0120045 of Gara Mandal, Srikakuiam there by stopped the supply of Food grains without conducting any enquiry nor following the procedure of law as per the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, inspite of the petitoner’s explanation dt.23.03.2025 to the show cause notice all are illegal, unlawful, violatoin of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of Rulings Violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India proceedings in R.C.No.395/2025 CS dt.06.05.2025 by Allowing the Writ Petition and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0120045, Duvvupeta Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District. The authorization of the petitioner’s shop was renewed from time to time. Since the date of appointment, he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner. b. While so, on 28.01.2025, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Krikakulam, Village Revenue Officers of Duvvupeta and Village Revenue Officer of Gunapalem, inspected the shop of the petitioner and noticed variation in 4 VS,J W.P.No.16534 of 2025 the stock, seized the stock and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. b. Basing on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Krikakulam, Village Revenue Officers of Duvvupeta and Village Revenue Officer of Gunapalem, the 3rd respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, issued a show-cause notice vide Rc.No.395/2025 CS, dated 03.03.2025, to which the petitioner submitted explanation on 23.03.2025. In spite of which, without considering the same, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order vide R.C.No.395/2025 CS dated 06.05.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Act. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. 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. 5 VS,J W.P.No.16534 of 2025 5. 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. 6. 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 VS,J W.P.No.16534 of 2025 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. 7. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 06.05.2025 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 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 dated 06.05.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 8. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 06.05.2025 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. The respondents are further directed to complete 7 VS,J W.P.No.16534 of 2025 the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________ ___ V. SUJATHA, J Dt.03.09.2025 JLV