APHC010432342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22573/2025 Between: 1. S K RUKSHANA, W/O.EMUSA, AGED 30 YEARS, F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO-0856009, SINGARAYKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, NELLORE 3. THE COLLECTORCS PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. THE R D O ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, SINGARAYAKONDA 6. THE TAHSILDAR, SINGARAYAKONDA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2 ...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 order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, to declaring the in action of 4th respondent-R.D.O. Ongole, who has not conclude disciplinary proceedings even though 90 days is completed, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Honble High Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool Vs. A.Neelima (Division Bench) in W.A. No.112/1996 and also against the Judgments of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.20171/2025, dt.4-8-2025 (D.Ravanamma Vs. State of A.P.) and also against the mandatory provision of Cl.8(4)(2) of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and directed the respondents to restore the authorization of petitioner and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. Shop F.P. Shop No-0856009, Singaryakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, 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 direct the R.D.O., Ongole, Prakasam District/4th Respondent to allot Essential Commodities to the petitioners F.P. Shop, Shop No-0856009, Singarayakonda Village, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This 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 the Writ of Mandamus, to declaring the in action of 4th respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who has not conclude disciplinary proceedings even though 90 days is completed, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon’ble High Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool Vs. A Neelima (Division Bench) in W.A.No.112/1996 and also against the Judgments of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.20171/2025, dt.4.8.2025 (D.Ravanamma Vs. State of A.P.) and also against the mandatory provision of Cl.8(4)(2) of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and directed the respondents to restore the authorization of petitioner and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, Shop F.P. Shop No.0856009, Singaryakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, and pass such other order or orders….” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0856009, Singarayakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District and he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner. While so, on 01.03.2025, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda, 4 inspected the shop of the petitioner and submitted a report to the 4th respondent-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. b. Basing on the report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Singarayakonda, the 4th respondent-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, issued show-cause notice vide Rc.No.1/496/2025, dated 12.03.2025, to which the petitioner submitted explanation on 08.04.2025, in spite of which, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order bearing Rc.No.1/496/2025, dated 08.04.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Act. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri A.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing 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. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has submitted that the respondents did not commit any error in passing the 5 impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. As the enquiry was no 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. Neelima1 , wherein a Division Bench 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 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 7. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 08.04.2025 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 judgments and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the Respondents in the present case within the “reasonable period” i.e. 90 days, this Court affirms that that the 4th respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 08.04.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 8. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 4th respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 08.04.2025 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 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. 7 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________ ___ V. SUJATHA, J Dt.30.08.2025 JLV