APHC010463952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0^ MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23543 OF 2025 Between: Uribindi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Venkata Swamy, Hindu, aged 53 years, Occ. Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 1148019, R/o Balijepalli, H/o.Y.Sakibanda (v), Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Cuddapah, Annamayya District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ! 2. The Joint Collector CS, , Y.S.R.Kadapa Annamayya District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 5. The Deputy Tahsildar, M.L.S.Point, Chinnamandem Mandal, YSR.Kadapa District. 6. The Village Revenue Officer, T.Sakibanda village Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa 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 order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3'^^ respondent vide Ref.No.C/997/2024 dt.23.08.2025 cancelling the authorization/dea lership of % the petitioner for Fair Price Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalli H/o.T.Sakibanda Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalli S/o.T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by setting aside the proceedings in Ref.No.C/997/2024 dt.23.08.2025 issued by the 3 respondent. lA 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer rd for Fair Price Shop No. 1148019 of Balijapalli H/o.T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by suspending the operation of the proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.No.C/997/2024 dt.23.08.2025 and to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the Fair Price Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalli H/o.T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HABIBULLA SHAIK Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: % APHC010463952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23543/2025 Between: 1.URIBINDI VENKATESWARLU, .S/O.VENKATA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS OCC. FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO. R/0 BALUEPALLI, H/O.Y.SAKIBANDA (V), Y.S.R.CUDDAPAH ANNAMAYYA 1148019, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS DISTRICT 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY, Y.S R.KADAPA DISTRICT ■ 4.THE TAHSILDAR, CHINNAMANDEM DISTRICT 5.THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, M.L.S.POINT MANDAL, YSR.KADAPA DISTRICT 6.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, T.SAKIBANDA VILLAGE CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT Y.S.R.KADAPA ANNAMAYYA MANDAL,Y.S.R.KADAPA CHINNAMANDEM 2 vs.j'ii W.P.No.23543 of 2025 ...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 order or direction declaring more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Ref.No.C/997/2024 dt.23.08.2025 cancelling the authorization/dea lership of the petitioner for Fair Price Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalli H/o.T.Sakibanda Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of by this Honble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalli /o.T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by setting aside the proceedings in Ref.No.C/997/2024 dt.23.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass natural justice and contrary to the law laid down lA 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer Fair Price Shop No. 1148019 of Balijapalli Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District by suspending the operation of the proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.No.C/997/2024 dt.23.08.2025 and to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the Fair for H/o.T.Sakibanda, Price Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalli Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court and to pass H/o.T.Sakibanda Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.HABIBULLASHAIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: % 3 VS,J W.P.No.23543 of 2025 ORDER; The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- of the “...Jo isoue a Writ, order or direction declaring more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3''"' respondent vide Ref No. C/997/2024, cancelling the authorization/dealership of the petitioner Fair Price Shop No.1148019 of Balijapalll H/o T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S .R. Kadapa District as Illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 1148019 of Balijapalli H/o T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District by setting aside the proceedings in Ref No.C/997/2024 dated 28.08.2025 issued by the 3''^ respondent....” one dated 23.08.2025 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.1148019 of Balajipalli H/o.T.Sakibanda, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, vide, proceedings dated 22.06.2024 issued by the 3^'^ respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been supplying the essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or from the concerned authorities. b) While the matter being so, on 18.11.2024, 4‘^ respondent along with his staff has inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and on verification of the said stock with the records, have found thaTThere is no variation, but in VS,J 1. W.P.No.23543 of 2025 spite of the same, the 4‘^ respondent and his staff seized the stock available in the petitioners Fair Price Shop along with ePOS device as well as weighing scale informing the petitioner that as his wife,, is employed as a teacher he cannot be continued as a Fair Price Shop dealer and accordingly handed the Fair Price shop to the respondent herein. Thereafter respondent has issued proceedings dated 27.11.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry even without mentioning the period of suspension in the said proceedings. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No. 10478 of 2025, wherein this Court, on 25.04.2025 passed the interim order, suspending the proceedings dated 27.11.2024 issued by the respondent. over the 3 c) Pending the said writ petition, in spite of there being an interim order passed by this Court on 25.04.2025, the 3^^ respondent has issued proceedings dated 23.08.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, thereby the petitioner was constrained to withdraw W.P.No.10478 of 2025 02.09.2025 with a liberty to challenge the cancellation proceedings. In view of the same, the present writ petition is filed challenging the said proceedings of the S'"* respondent dated 23.08.2025 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, on the ground that in spite of there being an interim order suspending the proceedings whereby the authorization of the petitioner was suspended and even without conducting any enquiry the cancellation proceedings issued, which is illegal and arbitrary. on were % 5 VS,J W.P. No.23543 of2025 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant I Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, dated 23.08.2025 passed by the 3'"'^ respondent, it can be observed that except referring to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10478 of 2025 and a letter addressed to the Tahsildar on 13.06.2025 and the report of the Tahsildar dated 30.07.2025, admittedly no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation nor any enquiry was conducted by the respondents. an Though this Court has earlier suspended the order of suspension on the sole ground that the respondents has not ordered any enquiry or completed within 90 days of issuance of the show-cause notice. In spite of the even without conducting any detailed enquiry, the present impugned proceedings have been passed by the 3 cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, which is illegal and violation of principles natural justice anJ in violation of the orders passed by this Court W.P.No.10478 of 2025. 5. same respondent on 23.08.2025 in 6. As seen from the record, 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. Neelima\ wherein a Division Bench held as follows: T996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 6 VS,J W.P.No.23543 of 2025 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 bf 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. 7. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2025 are liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings dated 23.08.2025 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent. The respondents are directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. However, it is left open to the respondents to conduct an enquiry and complete the same within 90 days, if they so desire. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR '{ //TRUE COPY// SECflON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. % 3 Th^ r°"^* ' Y.S.R.Kadapa Annamayya District. 3. he Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty, Y.S.R.Kadapa District . he Tahstidar, Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District 5. The Deputy Tahsildar, M.L.S.Point YSR.Kadapa District. Chinnamandem Mandal, 6. The Village Revenue Officer, T.Sakibanda village Chinnamandem Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 7. One CC to Sri Habibulla Shaik. 8. Two CCs to GP FOR Advocate [OPUC] CIVIL SUPPLIES High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies RAM -f HIGH COURT DATED:08/09/2025 ORDER WP.NO. 23543 OF 2025 ^ 2 2 SEP 2075 K ,jJs4JyrrMt Sectieij^* DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS