APHC010532412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27496/2024 Between: Bathula Siva Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARANU PHANI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the order vide Rc.No.l/3150/2024 dated 30.10.2024, thereby suspending the authorization of Petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.0829013 at Chimakurthy Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the A.P.State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set- aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice…” 2 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for the last 13 years. On the report submitted by the 5th respondent/Food Inspector, the 3rd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has initiated disciplinary proceedings by framing charges against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, without giving an opportunity of hearing and explanation of the petitioner, suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop on 30.10.2024, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner averts that the respondents have not concluded the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be revoked and further submits that 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 at para No.13 held as 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 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 3 in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days 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.” 5. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents therein, and while disposing the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima2, a Division Bench of this High Court at para No.2 held as under: “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.” 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 4 6. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench, as extracted supra, this Court is of considered opinion that as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 90 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 30.10.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 7. 7. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 30.10.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date : 03.04.2025 SPP 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.27496 of 2024 Date : 03.04.2025 SPP