IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIPfH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 415 OF 2025 Between: /^andarlareddy Ramu, S/o.Dasanna, Hindu, aged 50 years, Occ Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1149045, r/o.Door No.6/15. Maravandlapalli H/o.Yandapalli Village Rayachoti Mandal, Kadapa District ...PETITIONER AND ^1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector (CS), Y.S.R.Kadapa District ^3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty, Y.S.R.Kadapa District 4. The Tahsildar, Rayachoty Mandal,Y.S.R.Kadapa District 5. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District 6. The Assistant Supply Officer, Y.S.R.Kadapa 7. The Village Revenue Assistant, Yandapalle village, Rayachoty Mandal Y.S.R.Kadapa District Secretariat Buildings, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the order in Ref.No. 1(4)/838/2019 dt.23.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent. one ciC^ suspending the authorization/dealership of the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.1149045, Maravavandlapalle H/o.Yandapalle village of Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District without concluding the enquiry nd not mentioning the period of suspension is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of prhciples pf natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 1149045, Maravavandlapalle H/o.Yandapalle village of Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by setting aside the order in Ref.No.1(4)/838/2019 dt.23.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 7 to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer for Fair Price Shop No.1149045i Maravavandlapalle H/o.Yandapalle village of Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by suspending the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.No.1(4)/838/2019 dt.23.08.2019 and to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the Fair Price Shop No. 1149045, Maravavandlapalle H/o.Yandapalle village of Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HABIBULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES’ The Court made the following: ORDER \ APHC010007612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] ■ V JT-?* ■■ WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 415/2025 Between: Bandarlareddy Ramu ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: I.HABIBULLASHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION N0.415 of 2025 ORDER: The present 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 order in Ref.No.1(4)/838/2019 dt.23.08.2019 issued by the 2"^ respondent, suspending the authorization/ dealership of the petitioners Fair Price Shop No.1149045, Maravavandlapalle H/o.Yandapalle village of Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, without concluding the enquiry and not mentioning the period of suspension is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 1149045, Maravavandlapalle H/o.Yandapalle village of Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by setting aside the order in Ref No. 1 (4)/838/2019 dt.23.08.2019 issued by the 2'^^ respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The case of the petitioner is that he is a physically handicapped person with 40% disability. The 3^^ respondent vide proceeding dated 12.01.1999 appointed the petitioner as dealer for fair price shop No.1149045 of Maravavandlapalle, H/o.Yandapalle Village of Rayachoty Mandal. Y.S.R.Kadapa District. The 5*^ respondent along with his staff inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner, prepared a panchanama on 08.08.2019 and seized the petitioner’s fair price shop. 2. 3 9 without conducting enquiry and without recording the statement of the nd respondent vide proceeding dated 23.08.2019 petitioner. The 2 suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop, without supplying the copy of the report and complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dealership of the petitioner was kept under suspension for more than four years without concluding enquiry. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.20240 of 2020, 3. 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 Ors\ 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 Collector, Guntur^, 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. Neelima^, 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 ‘ 2014 see Online Hyd 978 ^ 2005(1) ALD 847 ^ 1995 Law Suit (AP) 1015 4 Revenue Divisional Officer v/ithin 90 days, suspension has to be revoked or set aside. % 5. % 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 Punjab"* 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 Sukwinder Pal Bipan Kumar (3 supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for maximum period of 90 days. a 6. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the orderpassed 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 period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 7. Cn 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. ” ' 1982 (1) see 31 5 ^ar As the respondents have failed to complete the enquiry \A/ithin the period of 90 days, by considering the above legal proposition and 4. 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. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 23.08.2019, issued by the 2""' 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. SD/-A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Joint Collector (CS), Y.S.R.Kadapa District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty, Y.S.R.Kadapa District 4. The Tahsildaf, Rayachoty Mandal,Y.S.R.Kadapa District 5. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District 6. The Assistant Supply Officer, Y.S.R.Kadapa 7. The Village Revenue Assistant, Yandapalle village, Rayachoty Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District 8. One CC to Sri Habibulla Shaik Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED;05/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.415 of 2025 I 2 'I MAR 2025 o - ^ ^ . Current Section ^t^fSPATCVVfg^ ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS