IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 21209 OF 2024 Between: Chirra Sita Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged about 70 F.P.Shop Dealer, F.P.Shop No,0714028, R/o. Abburajupalem Village, Pedakurapadu Mandalam, Palnadu District. Years, Occ- ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of AP, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Dept., A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thulluru Mandal Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Narasaraopeta, Palnadu District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandalam Palnadu District. 5. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Proceedings Vide Rc.No.1169/2024-C dated 17.09.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioners Fair Price Shop for the Shop No. 0714028, Abburajupalem Village, Pedakurapadu Mandalam, Palnadu District, as illegal and arbitrary, violation principles of natural Justice and contrary to the Provisions of the ^^Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, by setting-aside the same and cdhsequently direct the respondents nos. 2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P. Shop No. 0714028, Abburajupalem Village, Pedakurapadu Mandalam, Palnadu District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P. Shop No. 0714028, Abburajupalem Village, Pedakurapadu Mandalam, Palnadu District, continuing the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop authorization, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010417362024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] 0: MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 21209/2024 Between: Chirra Sita Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Raju Gubbala Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP For Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order to declare the action of the 3"'^ respondent in issuing Proceedings Vide Rc.No.1169/2024-C dated 17.09.2024, suspending the authorization of the petitioners Fair Price Shop for the Shop No 0714028, Abburajupalem Village, Pedakurapadu Mandalam, Palnadu District, as illegal and arbitrary, violation principles of natural Justice and contrary to the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public 2 W.P.No.21209 ^ Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 by settingaside the same and consequently direct the respondents Nos.2 to 5 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P.Shop No.0714028, Abburajupalem Village, Pedakurapadu Mandalam, Palnadu District../’ 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though stock of fortified rice was in the opening balance as per the release order dated 21.06.2024 for allotment for the month of July 2024 and only 13 Kgs was allotted under the said release order, in the last month release order dated 22.07.2024, the opening balance was shown as 12.829 quintals and no allotment of fortified rice was made under the said release order. Therefore, he further submitted that inspite of such position of irregular record of stock, on the basis of the alleged inspection on 24.08.2024, variation of deficit stock of fortified rice of (-) 12.80 quintal was shown and deficit stock of (-) 12.62 quintal of MDM fortified rice was shown. He further submitted that only three days’ time was given to submit the explanation while giving show cause notice, and therefore, the petitioner could not submit the explanation to the authority, however till now no order of cancelling the dealership of the petitioner was passed. no The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the proceedings vide R.C.No.1169/2024-C, dated 08.10.2024, whereby Smt.Kondaveeti Sujatha of Jai Hanuman Mahila Self Help Group was temporarily appointed as dealer in respect of the shop of the petitioner. 3. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of passing the order of suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period on 17.09.2024 and about 120 days were passed since then till today, as no final order was passed by 4. 3 BSB,J W.P.No.21209 of2024 % holding the enquiry, the impugned order for suspension cannot survive indefinitely. 5. Though, initially the petitioner filed petition to implead third party, the petition was not pressed as the term for which incharge arrangement was made expired on 17.01.2025. 6. The written instructions placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, dated 05.09.2024 do not speak of initiation of any disciplinary action for enquiry initiated by the authorities. There are no latest instructions placed as to whether the enquiry was held and the dealership of the petitioner was finally terminated/cancelled. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, 2015 (3) ALD 102, it was held at paras 3 to 6 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 ^2005(1 )AtDa47 ^ 1995 LawSuit(AP) 1015 4 W.P.No.21209 oj 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. 5.1 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 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 period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.” In view of the above decision, since the interim order of suspension cannot survive for more tha a reasonable period of 90 days or for an indefinite period, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. ^1982(1) see 31 5 BSB,J W.P. No.21209 of 2024 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside. It is open for the authorities to conduct enquiry as per law, after providing opportunity to the petitioner for the enquiry. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECnOM OFFICER To, 1. Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS-I) Dept A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thulluru Mandal Amaravati, Guntur District. The Collector (CS), Narasaraopeta, Palnadu District The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. The Tahsildar, Pedakurapadu Mandalam Palnadu District. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. One CC to Sri Raju Gubbala, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TF f HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.21209 of 2024 g 2 “I FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section 1 "17' • ■' DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS