APHC010381292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19524/2024 Between: Smt. Dalli Ramanamma ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the Proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 3rd respondent herein, in Rc.No.301/2024 C.S, dt.17.04.2024, suspending the authorization of the petitioner herein, as F.P. Shop dealer without giving any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, in Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2018, and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the shop No.0106034. On the complaint of one Sri Vakada Ganesh on 07.02.2024 before the spandana grievance cell, a report, dated 13.02.2024 was submitted by the Tahsildar, for which, a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent on 18.02.2024 calling for explanation. The petitioner and the MDU operator have submitted their explanation on 11.03.2024 and 12.03.2024. The respondents, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the MDU operator, have suspended the authorization of the petitioner vide order in Rc.No.301/2024 C.S, dated 17.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order was passed on 17.04.2024. Even after lapse of more than 11 months, the respondents have not concluded the enquiry. 4. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.20240 of 2020, dated 09.12.2024 held as follows: 05. It is settled law that suspension of authorisation cannot be made for an indefinite period. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention the decision of this Court in Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors1, wherein, it was held at para Nos.3 to 7 as follows: “3. At the hearing, Sri. A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint 1 2014 SCC Online Hyd 978 3 Collector, Guntur2, in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, the suspension has to be revoked or set aside. I have carefully considered the said judgment. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima3, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the maximum period of suspension of a dealer can be 90 days and that consequently, if the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Divisional Officer within 90 days, suspension has to be revoked or set aside. 5. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector (2 supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of suspension based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab4 by holding that as per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, if the enquiry is not completed within 90 days, the suspension shall stand automatically revoked. The Division Bench analysed the facts in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar (3 supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. 6. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did not lay down the general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that context, the Division Bench has made the following observation - 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 2 2005(1) ALD 847 3 1995 Law Suit (AP) 1015 4 1982 (1) SCC 31 4 period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 7. On a careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (3 supra) and Joint Collector (2 supra), I respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D.SambasivaRao (1 supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified that no general proposition could be laid down that in every case, the maximum period of suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.” 5. As the respondents have failed to complete the enquiry within the period of 90 days, by considering the above legal proposition and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by setting aside the suspension order. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 17.04.2024, issued by the 3rd respondent and the authorization of the petitioner stands restored and the respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date : 25.03.2025 SPP 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.19524 of 2024 Date : 25.03.2025 SPP