APHC010420772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22175/2025 Between: 1. K KESAVULU REDDY, S/O LATE RAMI REDDY AGE 51 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1049023, VARATHU VILLAGE GANGADHARA NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GANGADHARA NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days and continuing to place the petitioner under vide Rc.G/1740/2023 dt 3 FP Shop No.1049023, Varathu Village Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22175/2025 K KESAVULU REDDY, S/O LATE RAMI REDDY AGE 51 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1049023, VARATHU VILLAGE GANGADHARA NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. THE COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, THE TAHSILDAR, GANGADHARA NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...RESP 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 to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days and continuing to place the petitioner under suspension for indefinite time vide Rc.G/1740/2023 dt 3-8-2023 (Received on 31-7-2025) in respect of the FP Shop No.1049023, Varathu Village Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA K KESAVULU REDDY, S/O LATE RAMI REDDY AGE 51 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO. 1049023, VARATHU VILLAGE GANGADHARA NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE COLLECTOR CS, CHITTOOR DIST., AT CHITTOOR. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, THE TAHSILDAR, GANGADHARA NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...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 to issue Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days suspension for indefinite time 2025) in respect of the FP Shop No.1049023, Varathu Village Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor 2 Dist., is contrary to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in E.Lakshmi Narayana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and ors and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,2018 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently revoke the suspension order dt 3-8-2023 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass IA 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 Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.G/1740/2023 dt:3-8- 2023 (Received on 31-7-2025) in respect of Shop No. 1049023, Varathu Village Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22175 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue Writ, Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry within stipulated period of 90 days and continuing to place the petitioner under suspension for indefinite time vide Rc.G/1740/2023 dt 3.8.2023 (Received on 31.7.2025) in respect of the FP Shop No.1049023,Varathu Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor Dist., is contrary to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in E.Lakshmi Narayana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and ors and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently revoke the suspension order dt. 3.8.2023 by directing the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.1049023, Varathur Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District and the petitioner has been running the fair price shop without any complaints either from the card holders or from the concerned authorities. While the matter being so, in the month of August, 2023, the respondents have changed the petitioner’s name in online portal and entered the name of the VRO. On observing the same, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar i.e. the 4th respondent herein and when enquired, came to know that his name has been changed due to the political pressures. As the petitioner was not 4 permitted to run the fair price shop, without there being any disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No.17172 of 2025 before this Court and after duly considering the copy of the suspension order dated 03.08.2023 furnished by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension on 03.08.2023, the said writ petition was disposed of on 31.07.2025, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the said suspension orders. In view of the same, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition, challenging the suspension order dated 03.08.2023 on the ground that though the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension in the year 2023, as on today neither the enquiry has been concluded nor the petitioner is permitted to run the said fair price shop. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 4. 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. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has submitted that the respondents did not commit any error in passing the impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 5 6. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool and others1. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No.13 as extracted herein under: 13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation of the authorisation, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days 1996 (1) APLJ 266 is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or otherwise of the authorisation. If for any reason the enquiry is not completed within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the appointing authority or the Appellate authority or the Revisionary authority. 7. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, the respondents therein preferred appeal viz., Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima2 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court, while agreeing with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment referred 1st supra, 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 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 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 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 03.08.2023 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 90 days i.e. within the “reasonable period”, this Court affirms that that the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 03.08.2023 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 03.08.2023 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, this order will not 7 preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 22.08.2025 MDP