APHC010433692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22074/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK GHOUSE PEER, S/O. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO.L 149049, R/O. GORLAVAMUDIVEEDU VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY, 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MA 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. 6. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 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 under IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22074/2025 SHAIK GHOUSE PEER, S/O. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO.L 149049, R/O. GORLAVAMUDIVEEDU VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY, THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 under IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA SHAIK GHOUSE PEER, S/O. MOHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. PERMANENT F.P SHOP DEALER OF F.P SHOP NO.L 149049, R/O. GORLAVAMUDIVEEDU VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY ...PETITIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY, NDAL, ANNAMAYYADISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ...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 under 2 Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus filed assailing the proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/839/2019, dated 23.08.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 3 in suspendingmy authorization and the consequential action of the Respondents in not concluding the enquiry even after lapse of 6 years as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2008 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings and drop all the further proceedings inpursuance of the same 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following 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 under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus filed assailing the proceedings in Ref.No.I(4)/839/2019, dated 23.08.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 in suspending my authorization and the consequential action of the Respondents in not concluding the enquiry even after lapse of 6 years as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Orders 2008 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings and drop all the further proceedings in pursuance of the same and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer for fair price shop No.1149049 situated at Gorlavamudiveedu Village, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. Since the date of said appointment, the petitioner was discharging his duties diligently and without any complaint either from the card holders or the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on 08.08.2019, the Additional Revenue Inspector, from the office of the Tahsildar, Rayachoty, conducted an inspection over the petitioner’s fair price shop and found certain irregularities and variations in the stock and as such, the same was reported to the 6th respondent i.e., the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that basing on the 6-A report of the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, dated 09.08.2019, the 3rd respondent issued 4 the impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2019 vide Ref.No.I(4)/839/2019, suspending the petitioner’s authorization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. As the appeal was not disposed of for a long period, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No.20466 of 2019, which was disposed of on 18.12.2019, with a direction to the 2nd respondent therein to decide the said stay petition and as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the said order. In compliance to the orders passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 01.10.2020 has rejected the petitioner’s stay petition and directed the 3rd respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, expeditiously. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that instead of repeated representations made by the petitioner, the latest being 16.07.2025, the respondents failed to either conclude the enquiry or to restore the petitioner’s authorization. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the instructions of the 5th respondent vide reference No.D1/1187/2025, dated 03.09.2025, wherein, the 5th respondent has reiterated the facts as stated by 5 the petitioner and have also admitted that, as on today the enquiry has not been completed in pursuance of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 01.10.2020. 8. 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. 9. 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: 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 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 not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 10. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 23.08.2019 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, pending finalization of disciplinary case 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 23.08.2019 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 11. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 23.08.2019 issued 7 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. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 09.09.2025 MDP