% a APHC010424602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0 A BE0 B FRIDAY,THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE -a'- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21854 OF 2025 Between: Dasari Nalini, w/o Venkata Rao, aged about 40 years, occ Fair Price Shop Dealer Shop No. 0713037, Damarapalli village Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the show cause notice bearing Rc.No. 731/2025-B dt. 22-3-2025 as well as the suspension order bearing Rc.No. 731/2025-B dt. 22- 3-2025 and continuing the F.P. shop dealership under suspension beyond 90 days, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the suspension order dt. 22-3-2025 bearing Rc.No. 731/2025-B and restore the deatership, and to grant lA 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 to pass orders directing the 2nd respondent herein to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0713037 of Damarapalli village Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: y APHC010424602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BEE [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21854/2025 Between: 1.DASARI NALINI, W/0 VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER DAMARAPALLI VILLAGE TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT SHOP NO. 0713037 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the show cause notice bearing Rc.No. 731/2025- B dt. 22-3-2025 as well as the suspension order bearing Rc.No. 731/2025-B dt. 22-3-2025 and continuing the F.P. shop dealership under suspension beyond 90 days, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set 2 aside the suspension order dt. 22-3-2025 bearing Rc.No. 731/2025-B and restore the dealership, and to grant lA 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 pass orders directing the 2nd respondent herein to continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0713037 of Damarapalli village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.21854 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2"'^respondent in issuing the show cause notice bearing Rc.No.731/2025-B dt.22.3.2025 as welt as the suspension order bearing Rc.No.731/2025-B dt 22.3.2025 and continuing the F.P. shop dealership under suspension beyond 90 days as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the suspension order dt 22.3.2025 bearing Rc.No.731/2025-B and restore the dealershipand to pass such other order or orders ....” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0713037, Damarapalli Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. While the matter being so, on 04.03.2025, the 3'^'^ respondent along 3. with other officials have visited the petitioner’s shop in her absence and conducted verification and proceeded to seize the stocks on the allegation that there is a variation of 1375 Kgs of fortified rice excess on the ground and accordingly booked a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. Thereafter, the 2^^ respondent issued a show cause notice dated 4. 22.03.2025 bearing Rc.No.731/2025-B, leveling four charges against the 4 petitioner calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^^ respondent, on the same day i.e. on 22.03.2025, also passed suspension orders without even waiting for submission of the explanation. However, the petitioner has submitted her 5. explanation on 02.04.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that though the nd Statutory period of suspension of 90 days have been elapsed, the 2 respondent failed to conduct any enquiry in pursuance of the suspension orders dated 22.03.2025 which is contrary. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 7. 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. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished nd a copy of the instructions of the 2 respondent vide letter bearing Rc.No.1912/2025 dated 13.08.2025, wherein, it is stated that on credible nd information and as per the instructions of the District Administration, the 2 respondent along with Village Revenue Officer, Damarapalli Village Tadikonda Mandal, rushed to the petitioner’s fair price shop on 04.03.2025at about 4:00 P.M., and conducted surprise inspection on the petitioner’s fair price shop in the presence of the mediators. At the time of inspection, one person was present in the shop and on enquiry she revealed her name as 5 Smt. Dasari Nalini, W/o. Venkata Rao and stated that she is the original fair price shop dealer and running the shop from the past 10 years. When the ground stocks available in the shop were verified with reference to the stock report of e-Pos device, the following variations were found: Stocks as per e-Pos device SI. Variations Ground stocks Commodity No. 1900 (+)1375 Fortified Rice (in Kgs) 525 1 Sugar (in Kgs) 2 R.G.Dall (in Kgs) 3 When a question was put to the petitioner about the variation in stock, 9. she replied that she purchased the PDS rice from the cardholders, who refused to take the stocks, while distributing with the help of MDU operator attached to the fair price shop and kept the same in the shop for selling to the needy people in the open market at higher rates for her personal gain. As such, the CS DT, Tadikonda, sent a requisition to the Station House Officer requesting to lodge a criminal case against the culprits, who are involved in the said business. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Tadikonda Police Station has registered a criminal case vide FIR No.38/2025 dated 05.03.2025 under Section 318 (4) BNS, 7 EGA against the concerned. The CS DT, Tadikonda filed a report under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, before the Joint Collector, Guntur, requesting to confiscate the entire seized stocks to the Government and as well as submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, under Clause 20 (i) Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 for initiation of disciplinary action against the dealer. Accordingly, show cause notice was X.t 6 V issued on 22.03.2025, calling for explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her explanation on 02.04.2025, requesting to discharge the charges leveled against her and to pass necessary orders for continuation of her dealership. The report of CS DT, Tadikonda, clearly indicates that the petitioner has kept 1375 Kgs of fortified rice in her shop with an intention to divert the same to the black market for her personal gain without distributing to the card holders and thus violated clause 12 (f) of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order. 2018. Therefore, the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop was kept under suspension on 22.03.2025. It is further stated in the said instructions that a detailed enquiry has already been commenced into the irregularities committed by the petitioner herein. 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. Neelima^, 10. wherein the Division Bench held as under; 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. H/e agree with the view of the 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 7 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. f i In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 11 22.03.2025 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 judgment 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 2'^'^ respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 22.03.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 2'^'^ respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 22.03.2025 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and 12. continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, this order will not 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. 8 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri. K Joseph, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP For Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. Secretariat, AL HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21854 OF 2025 ^ 1 1 SEP 2025 ml ico' 9 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS