IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 23165 OF 2024 Between: B Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.B.Thimma reddy. Aged about 48 years, Occ; Fair Shop dealer shop No. 1349041, Kamalapuram Village, H/o. Malkapuram Mandal, Dhone Mandal, Nandhyal District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Joint Collector, Nandhyal District, Nandhayal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandhyal District, 4. The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandhayal District. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Dhone Mandal, Nandhayal District. Chakali Seetha Ramudu, , father name not known to the petitioner,MDU Operator of the petitioner fair price shop,MDU Id NO.KL49013, R/o. Kamalapuram Village, H/o. Malkapuram Mandal, Dhone Mandal, Nandhyal District. Kalluri Lakshmi Devi, W/o. K Venkateswarlu, aged about 47 years, R/o. D No. 9-56-a, Kamalapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, Nandyal District. (R7 is impleaded In Writ Petition and Affidavit as per Court’s Order Dt. 20/01/2025 in IA 2 of 2024.) 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring assailing the proceedings in Rc.CS.No.420/2024, dated 08.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 and the consequential show cause notice, dated 08.10.2024 issued by him as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well- established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the lA NO: 1 OF 2024 same. Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents continue me as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Rc.CS.No.420/2024, dated 08.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 and the show cause notice, dated 08.10.2024, pending disposal of the above Writ consequential Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: SRI T DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010451742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 23165/2024 BETWEEN: B MADHUSUDHAN REDDY ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT{S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of 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 declaring assailing the proceedings in Rc.No.CS.420/202 4, dated 08.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 and the consequential show cause notice, dated 08.10.2024 issued by him as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 apd 2 W.P.No.23165 of 202^ Dt: 20.01.2025 contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass...” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a) The petitioner is a dealer in respect of fair price shop No.1349041, Kamalapuram Village, H/o. Malkapuram Mandal, Dhone Mandal, Nandhyal District, appointed in the year 2006. The authorization of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. While so, on 03.10.2024, due to political pressures, the 5*'^ respondent, along with his subordinate staff, visited the petitioner’s fair price shop and stated that there are variations in the stocks without conducting any inspection or noting panchanama. The respondent authorities had taken the custody of rice and epos machine. On 08.10.2024, based on the report submitted by the 4^^ respondent, the 3 rd respondent suspended the authorization of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner contravened rule 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and a consequential show-cause notice was issued mentioning the following variations: SI. Commodity Total Sales in Remaining stock in ePoS in Physical stock in ePoS in Variation in kgs No. stock in kgs kgs kgs kgs 1. PDS Rice (+)188 7797 5430 2367 2555 (fortified rice) 2. Jaggery 4 packets 4 packets 4 packets 3. Sugar (half kg packets) 504 358 146 146 packets packets packets packets 4. Ragi 4 packets 4 packets 4 packets + 3 W.P.No.23165 of 2024 Dt: 20.01.2025 * >> 5. Palmolein oil (half liter packets) 26 26 26 packets (each liters) packets (each >2 liters) packets (each >2 liters) b) From thereon, the respondent authorities have not been supplying essential commodities to the petitioner without passing any order of suspension/cancellation of authorization. Thus, this writ petition was filed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged variation in the stock is for the reason that the respondent No.6 who is the MDU operator of the subject fair price shop who was taking care of distribution of rice to the card holders and not the petitioner herein; that on the day of subject inspection and a day before the subject inspection, the respondent No.6 had come to the subject shop and had taken finger prints of the 7 cardholders and informed the petitioner that they would take the commodities in the evening as they were going for their daily waged work as the shop was on the way to their work place; that the petitioner was under the impression that they would collect the commodities in the evening, but at that juncture, the respondent No.3 had come to the subject shop and conducted the inspection and the respondent No.3, without listening to the explanation and without examining the said cardholders, had unmindfully passed the impugned order. 3. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions. He further submitted that as per Clause 12(e) of the Control Order, 2018, no dealer can allow the commodity to be in the shop after taking authentication from the cardholder on the epos machine and therefore, the explanation stated by the petitioner in the writ petition is not acceptable. He further submitted that the variation in the stock is beyond 1.5% as allowed under Clause 29(a) pf the 5. 4 W.P.No.23165 of 2024 Dt: 20.01.2025 Control Order, 2018, and as such, the impugned order does not require interference. The learned counsel for the respondent No.7 adopted the same argument. He further submitted that the writ petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice inspite of the sufficient time given. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the order of suspension was passed about more than 90 days ago, no enquiry has been commenced and concluded and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the order is to be set aside for the reasons already stated in the writ petition. As the petitioner has not furnished any explanation so far before the authorities, they have no opportunity to examine the version of the petitioner from the available material on record. The impugned order was passed in the light of the provisions of law. As such, the impugned order is not illegal on its face. 7. 8. In the case of Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, 2015 (3) ALD 102, it was held at paras 3 to 6 as follows: 9. “3. At the hearing, Sri. A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur”', in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, the suspension has to be revoked or set aside. I have carefully considered the said judgment. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima^, a Division ‘ 2005(1 )ALD847 ^ 1995 .LawSuit(AP) 1015 5 W.P.No.23165 of 2024 Dt; 20.01.2025 Bench of this Court has held that the maximum period of suspension of a dealer can be 90 days and that consequently, if the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Divisional Officer within 90 days, suspension has to be revoked or set aside. 5. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector (2 supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of suspension based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab^ by holding that as per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, if the enquiry is not completed within 90 days, the suspension shall stand automatically revoked. The Division Bench analysed the facts in Sukwinder Pal Bipan Kumar (3 supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. 6. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did not lay down the general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that context, the Division Bench has made the following observation - 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. On a careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (3 supra) and Joint Collector (2 supra), 1 respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D. Sambasiva Rao (1 supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified \ ^1982(1) see 31 6 W.P.No.23165 of 202^ Dt: 20.01.2025 that no general proposition could be laid down that in every case, the maximum period of suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.” However, since the enquiry is not completed even after the lapse of more than 90 days from the date of passing the impugned order and the said order is not for any specified period i.e., for an indefinite period, it cannot be allowed to continue forever. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to pass final order by holding the enquiry as per law within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the order of suspension of the authorization of the petitioner dated 18.10.2024 gets set aside without any further order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. 10. Sd/- N, NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Joint Collector, Nandhyal District, Nandhayal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandhyal District, The Tahsildar, Dhone Mandal, Nandhayal District. The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Dhone Mandal, Nandhayal District. ^ One CC to Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Saranu Phani Teja, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. TF HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.23165 of 2024 i 0 1 MAR 2025 | ^ . Current Section . w DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS