APHC010003782021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 252/2021 Between: 1. C.SIVASANKAR,, S/O. C.MUSALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.1285058, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU 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 a writ order or direction more 2 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1285058 of Ananthapuramu Town and mandal Ananthapuramu District vide Rc.No. D1CS/1694/2020 dated 18-12-2020 as illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 cancellation of authorization of the petitioner in Rc. No., D 1 CS/ 1694/2020, dated 18.12.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent by supplying the Essential Commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop No.1285058 of Ananthapur Town and Mandal, Ananthapur District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 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 3rd respondent in cancelling the authorization of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1285058 of Ananthapuramu Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District vide Rc.No.D1CS/1694/2020, dated 18.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.1285058 of Ananthapuramu Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. The petitioner has been supplying the essential commodities to all the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on 11.10.2019 at about 08.00 a.m. the 4th respondent herein has inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and verified the epos device closing balances and ground balances. After verification, he has noticed certain variations i.e., an excess of PDS rice 273.901 kgs, an excess of 6.006 kgs of sugar and a less quantity of red gram dal. 4. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has submitted a report to the 3rd respondent, in pursuance of which, the 2nd respondent booked 6-A case under the E.C. Act as against the petitioner. Basing on the report of the 4 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 20.11.2019, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. For which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation through his advocate on 03.01.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the said explanation before the 2nd respondent and pending 6A report submitted by the Tahsildar, Anathapuramu Town and Mandal, the 2nd respondent, without considering the explanation, straight away cancelled the petitioner’s authorization on 22.01.2020 under the influence of the local political leaders. Challenging which, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.3148 of 2020, which was allowed by this Court vide orders dated 04.03.2020 as under:- “8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Rc.No.K3/3434/2019 dated 23.01.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his written explanation and consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and Rules expeditiously, but not later than two month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be permitted to run fair price shop No.1285058 in Anathapuramu Town.” 5 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in spite of there being a specific direction from this Court to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) months, the 3rd respondent herein even without conducting any enquiry has again passed impugned order dated 18.12.2020 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter, duly reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated that an enquiry as directed by this Court, could not be completed in view of the Covid-19 pandamic and in view of G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 09.09.2020, as per which the appointing authority is Revenue Divisional Officer. The 2nd respondent, who was supposed to conduct the enquiry, has failed to complete the enquiry as the Government of the Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 09.09.2020, as per which the appointing authority would be the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., the 3rd respondent having jurisdiction. It is also stated that the petitioner ought to have preferred a revision before the District Collector, Ananthapuramu, challenging the orders of the cancellation of his authorization instead of filing the present writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 6 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 8. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 18.12.2020, it can be observed that admittedly no such enquiry has been conducted by the respondents in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3148 of 2020,, dated 04.03.2020. However, basing on the records that there is variation of 160 kgs of Rice, a shortage of 25kgs of MDM RG Dal, a shortage of 8.895 kgs of Sugar, a shortage of 3.014 kgs of Ragi and a shortage of 0.720 kgs of Atta, which constitute 100% variation, contrary to Clause 29(a) of APSTPDS Control Order, 2018, as only minor variation in respect of single commodity up to 1.5% is allowed, the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled. Except stating so, nowhere it is mentioned as to whether they have conducted any enquiry by giving a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner or not. Even as per the counter affidavit, it is an admitted fact that no enquiry has been conducted in view of Covid-19 pandamic and also in view of G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 09.09.2020, as per which the appointing authority has been changed from the Joint Collector to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 9. 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: 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 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 more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 10. As the respondents have failed to conduct any enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P.No.3148 of 2020, dated 04.03.2020, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 18.12.2020. In view of the same, the petitioner shall comply all the necessary requirements for obtaining the authorization of the aforesaid fair price shop and the respondents are directed to hand over the said fair price shop to the petitioner and also supply the essential commodities to the petitioner without any delay. No order as to costs. 8 VS,J W.P.No.252 of 2021 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 30.08.2025 JLV