APHC010438162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22906/2025 Between: 1. B VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O. POMPATHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP.NO.1381001, SUFFERING ILL HEALTH. REP. BY NOMINEE, SMT. B SARADA, R/O. D.NO. 11/76, KOLU GOTIA ROAD, KONDAVEETI PRANTHAM, YEMMIGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 4. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, YEMMIGANUR MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.22906 of 2025 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 tomay be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the order of the 4th respondent dated 13.05.2025 vide Rc.(M). 1206/2025 by suspended the authorization of F.P. Shop No. 1381001 of Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural Justice and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the above orders passed by the respondents 3 and 4 and direct the respondents to permit the Petitioner to run the F.P. Shop No. 1381001 of the Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District by supplying essential commodities and pass such 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 may be pleased to suspend the order dated 13.05 2025 vide RC.(M).1206/2025 passed by Respondent No.4 and direct the respondents to permit the Petitioner to run F.P. Shop of Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District by supplying essential commodities and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.22906 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “..to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the order of the 4th respondent dated 13.05.2025 vide Rc.(M).1206/2025 by suspended the authorization of F.P.Shop No.1381001 of Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural Justice and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the above orders passed by the respondents 3 and 4 and direct the respondents to permit the Petitioner to run the F.P.Shop No.1381001 of the Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District by supplying essential commodities and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. The petitioner was initially appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1381001 at Yammiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2007. As the petitioner was suffering with paralysis, his wife who stood as nominee was continued as fair price shop dealer and the same was renewed from time to time. Since the date of appointment, they have been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner. b. While so, on 03.05.2025, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Kurnool, inspected the shop of the petitioner and noticed 4 VS,J W.P.No.22906 of 2025 variation in the stock, seized the stock and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. b. Basing on the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Kurnool, the 4th respondent-the Sub Collector, Adoni, issued show-cause notice vide Rc.(M).1206/2025, dated 13.05.2025, to which the petitioner submitted explanation on 17.05.2025, in spite of which, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.(M).1206, dated 13.05.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Act. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri K.Vijaya Raju, 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 VS,J W.P.No.22906 of 2025 impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. 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. 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 VS,J W.P.No.22906 of 2025 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 13.05.2025 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 13.05.2025 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 13.05.2025 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. The 4th respondent is further directed to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 7 VS,J W.P.No.22906 of 2025 two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________ ___ V. SUJATHA, J Dt.03.09.2025 JLV