APHC010445572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER ^ ' § TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 23064 OF 2025 ^ O Between: Potlapalli Padmavathi, W/o. Srinivasula Reddy, aged 51 years Price Shop Dealer, R/o. Gummanampadu village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Occ: Fair ...Petitioner AND 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplied Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order direction, declaring the impugned order Re.No.2643/2024-G dated 07-01- 2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide. or lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order Rc.No.2643/2024-G dated 07-01- 2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: It APHC010445572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23064/2025 Between: 1.POTLAPALLI PADMAVATHI, W/0 SRINIVASULA REDDY. AGED 51 YEARS. OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/0 GUMMANAMPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIED DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3.THE TAHSILDAR, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Re.No.2643/2024-G dated 07-01- 2025 on the file of District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide and pass \A 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 VELAGAPUDI Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu / 9 2 VS,J W.P. No.23064 of2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.23064 of2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.2643/2024-G dated 07.01.2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide... ” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as the permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of shop No.0721009 at Gummanampadi Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner. While so, on 05.12.2024, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukondanda inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop, found certain variations in the stock, prepared a mediatornama and foisted a false case against the petitioner. a. Subsequently, the 2"^ respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 16.12.2024, alleging variation in the stock available in the petitioner’s fair price shop and directing him to submit an explanation within seven (7) days. In response, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 07.01.2025, denying the allegations. However, even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2^^^ respondent passed the impugned order dated 07.01.2025, suspending her authorization pending enquiry. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. b. 4 VS,J ‘ W.P.No.23064 of2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. 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. 4. 5. The 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. 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^ Kurnooi vs. A. Neelima^ , wherein a Division Bench held as follows: 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 ^ 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 5 VS,J W.P.No.23064 of 2025 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. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 7. 07.01.2025 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 2'^'^ respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 07.01.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed revoking the 8. suspension order dated 07.01.2025 issued against the petitioner and directing the 2^^^ respondent to 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 respondents are further directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 VS,J ' W.P.No.23064 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplied Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. 4. One CC to Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 23064 OF 2025 ^ 17 SEP 2025 ^O'^Cijrrent SectlonXj5^ I *=*1 ml -»• Co' ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS