APHC010328262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBERw-^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEw PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16600 OF 2025 Between: Govindu Sudha Rani, W/o.Konda Reddy, Aged about 34 years. Regular F.P. Shop Dealer, FP Shop No.0852007, Bodawada Village, R/o.D.No.3-21, Bodawada Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Collector C S, Ongole, Prakasam District. The Disciplinary Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. The Food Inspector Kanigiri, Prakasam District. % 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Y/ht of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing Interim Suspension Proceedings vide Rc.E/530/2025, dated 07-05-2025 without considering explanation of the petitioner pending Section 6-A of EC proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, detrimental to the petitioners livelihood and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2018 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and consequently direct the Interim Suspension Proceedings vide dated 07-05-2025 and permit the petitioner to continue Public Distribution by releasing the seized 4150 KGs of PDS Rice, 318 respondents to set aside the Rc. E/530/2025 Packets of Sugar, 33 Packets of ICDS Red Gram Dal, 19 Packets of ICDS Rice 3 Kg, 19 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil 1/2 Ltr, 3 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil 1 Ltr, 5 Packets of MDM Jaggery, 5 Packets of MDM Ragi Powder, 1 e-pos machine, 1 Electronic Weighing Machine, 1 Charge Machine of the FP Shop No.0852007 pending Sec.6-A of EC Act proceedings. 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 direct the respondents to set aside the Interim Suspension Proceedings vide Rc.E/530/2025, dated 07-05-^025 and permit the petitioner to continue Public Distribution by releasing the seized 4150 KGs of PDS Rice, 318 Packets of Sugar, 33 Packets of ICDS Red Gram Dal, 19 Packets of ICDS Rice 3 Kg, 19 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil Yz Ltr, 3 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil 1 Ltr, 5 Packets of MDM Jaggery, 5 Packets of MDM Ragi Powder, 1 e-pos machine, 1 Electronic Weighing Machine, 1 Charge Machine of the FP Shop No.0852007 pending Section 6-A of EC Act proceedings pending disposal of the main Writ Petition... Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010328262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 16600/2025 Between: 1.GOVINDU SUDHA RANI, W/O.KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. REGULAR F.P. SHOP DEALER, FP SHOP N0.0852007, BODAWADA VILLAGE, R/O.D.NO.3-21, BODAWADA VILLAGE, PAMUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR C S, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3.THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5.THE FOOD INSPECTOR KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Y/ht of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in issuing Interim Suspension Proceedings vide Rc.E/530/2025, dated 07-05-2025 2 vs,j W.P.No.16600 of 2025 Without considering explanation of the petitioner pending Section 6-A of LI Act proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, detrimental to the petitioners livelihood and violation of fundamental guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and EC rights contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2018 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 respondents to set aside the and consequently direct the Interim Suspension Proceedings vide dated 07-05-2025 and permit the petitioner to continue Public Distribution by releasing the seized 4150 KGs Rc. E/530/2025, of PDS Rice, 318 Packets of Sugar, 33 Packets of ICDS Red Gram Dal, 19 Packets of ICDS Rice 3 Kg, 19 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil 1/2 Ltr, 3 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil 1 Ltr, 5 Packets of MDM Jaggery, 5 Packets of MDM Ragi Powder, 1 e-pos machine, 1 Electronic Weighing Machine, 1 Charge Machine of the FP Shop No.0852007 pending Sec.6-A of EC Act proceedings and pass lA 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 direct the respondents to set aside the interim Suspension Proceedings vide Rc.E/530/2025, dated 07-05-2025 and permit the petitioner to continue Public Distribution by releasing the seized 4150 KGs of PDS Rice, 318 Packets of Sugar, 33 Packets of ICDS Red Gram Dal, 19 Packets of ICDS Rice 3 Kg, 19 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil Yz Ltr, 3 Packets of ICDS Palm Oil 1 Ltr, 5 Packets of MDM Jaggery, 5 Packets of MDM Ragi Powder, 1 e-pos machine, 1 Electronic Weighing Machine, 1 Charge Machine of the FP Shop No.0852007 pending Section 6-A of EC Act proceedings pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and Counselfor the Petitioner: 1.DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: pass 3 VS,J fl\ W.P.No.16600 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 action of the respondent in issuing Interim Suspension Proceedings vide Rc. E/530/2025, dated 07-05-2025 without considering explanation of the petitioner pending Section 6-A of EC Act proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, detrimental to the petitioner’s livelihood and violation of fundamentai rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted PDS (Control) Crder, 2018 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the Interim Suspension Proceedings vide Rc.E/530/2025, dated 07-05-2025 and permit the petitioner to continue Public Distribution by releasing the seized 4150 KGs of PDS Rice, 318 Packets of Sugar, 33 Packets of ICDS Red Gram Dal, 19 Packets of ICDS Rice 3 Kg, 19 Packets of ICDS Palm Gil 1/2 Ltr, 3 Packets of ICDS Palm Cil 1 Ltr, 5 Packets ofMDM Jaggery, 5 Packets of MDM Ragi Powder, 1 e-pos machine, 1 Electronic Weighing Machine, 1 Charge Machine of the FP Shop No.0852007 pending Sec.6-A of EC Act proceedings ...” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0852007 at Bodawada Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District and since several years, she has been maintaining the said shop without any remarks from the authorities. 4 VS,J W.P.No.l6600of2025 b) While the matter being so, on 03.04.2025, respondents No.4 and 5 inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and found variation of 1026 kgs of PDS rice and excess 16 packets of sugar. On that, the respondents No.4 and 5 seized the stock, ePOS machine. Electronic Weighing Machine, Charge Machine of the petitioner’s fair price shop, and handed over the same to the Village Revenue Officer, Bodawada for safe custody and prepared a panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 04.04.2025, the petitioner approached respondents No.4 and 5 requesting them to re-inspect the stock in her shop, but they refused the same. Subsequently, the respondents No.4 and 5 filed a report under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is doing clandestine business with PDS commodities by diverting to black market. c) Earlier also, when the respondents made similar allegations against the petitioner and initiated proceedings under Section 6-A and issued temporary suspension proceedings, dated 03.12.2024, the petitioner constrained to file W.P.No.29521 of 2024 before this Court, wherein this Court, after verifying the documents and material on record, vide, order dated 23.12.2024 set-aside the temporary suspension proceedings, dated 03.12.2024 and restored her authorization. Due to political pressure, again the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of E.C. Act against the petitioner alleging that she is diverting PDS commodities to black market and seized the stock. Finally, on 15.04.2025, the petitioner submitted her written explanation to the 2'’'^ respondent stating that respondents No.4 and 5 have was 5 VS,J (h. W.P.No.16600 of 2025 highhandedly seized the stock without verifying the second room of her fair price shop and without counting each and every sugar packet and initiated Section 6-A proceedings against the petitioner. However, the 2'^'^ respondent did not take any action on the explanation given by the petitioner till date, respondent, without taking any action on the explanation given by the petitioner, has seized the stock, pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is constrained to file W.P.No.10786 of 2025 before this Court seeking to allow her to continue as Public Distribution by releasing the seized stock, wherein this Court passed interim order directing the respondents to release the stocks to the petitioner on verifying the necessary challans. nd However, the 2 d) In order to avoid supply of PDS commodities to the petitioner and restrict her from continuing the public distribution, the 3'^*^ respondent now issued impugned proceedings, dated 07.05.2025 placing authorization of her fair price shop under interim suspension till pending enquiry. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. When the matter came up for admission on 21.07.2025, this Court 3. passed the following interim order: ....there shall be interim suspension of impugned order dated 07.05.2025 vide Rc.E/530/2025 of respondent No.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant 4. Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. VS,J W.P.No.16600 of 2025 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that in obedience to the orders in W.P.No.10786 of 2025, a notice dated 04.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing her to furnish challans which were stated to be paid on account of E.C.s on 10.06.2025 for taking further necessary action. But the petitioner did not submit any challans which stated to be paid on account of E.C.s. Subsequently, on 26.06.2025, a final notice was issued to the petitioner directing her to attend on 30.06.2025 and furnish challans. Then also, the petitioner did not appear and failed to submit any challans. However, now the petitioner has directly approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Therefore, the respondents did not any error in passing the impugned interim suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. Admittedly it is not the case of the respondents that they have completed the enquiry and cancelled the petitioner’s authorization. were commit 7. As seen from the record, as the enquiry was not completed within 90 days from the date of suspension, the present writ petition is squarely covered 7 VS,J fx W.P.No.16600 of 2025 by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^, 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 y. 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. 8. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 07.05.2025 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 5996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 8 vs,J ¥% W.P.No.16600 of 2025 that that the respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 07.05.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed revoking the suspension order dated 07.05.2025 issued against the petitioner and directing the 3’’'^ respondent to 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 supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’sfair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO^FFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department,State Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector C S, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. The Disciplinary Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer Prakasam District. 4. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kanigiri, Prakasam District 5. The Food Inspector Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 6. One CC to Sri Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies of Amaravathi Kanigiri, Cnr ■; 5;- HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16600 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS f