IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :::: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable ms justice B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2792.-^ r>F onoA o Between: K Ananthamma, W/o. K.Karunaker Aged dealer, R/o. 3-109C, Golla Road, Anantapur District. about 45years, Occ. F.P.Shop Beluguppa village and Mandal ...Petitioner AND secretary. Civil supplies department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Joint Collector, Kalayandurg, Ananthapur District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, 4. The Tahasildar, Beluguppa Mandal Kalyandurgam, Anantapur District. Anantapur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate order may or direction more particularly a - 3rd respondent in suspending writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the the authorization of the petitioners fair price shop no.1216002, situated at Beluguppa village and Beluguppa village and Mandal Anantapur District vide proc. Rc.No.B3/1070-c/2024, without following due procedure dated 14-10-2024. On flimsy grounds contemplated under law as illegal arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the provisions of the Anadhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control), Order, 2018 and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the impugned suspension orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.B3/1070-c/2024, dated 14-10- 2024, and consequently direct the respondents to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioners fair price shop No. 1216002, situated at Beluguppa village and Beluguppa village and Mandal, Anantapur District and allow the petitioner to continue as Fair price shop dealer in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 supply the essential commodities to the petitioner Fair price shop no.1216002, situated at Beluguppa village and Beluguppa village and Mandal, Anantapur District in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. M HEMALATHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010536612024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 27923/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER K Ananthamma AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of AP and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M HEMALATHA 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; be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more ...may particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop no.1216002, situated at Beluguppa Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, vide proc.Rc.No.B3/1070-c/2024, dated 14-10- rd 2024. On flimsy grounds without following due procedure contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public provisions of the DlstHbution System (Control) Order, 2018 and violation of / W.P. No.27923 of 202^^ 2 principles of natural justice and set aside the impugned suspension respondent vide Rc.No.B3/1070-c/2024, and consequently, direct the respondents to Commodities to the petitioners fair price shop rd orders passed by the 3 dated 14-10-2024 release the Essential situated at Beluguppa village and Mandal, Anantapur No.1216002, District and allow the petitioner to continue as Fair price shop dealer in the interest of justice and pass... The petitioner was appointed as permanent dealer of the fair price shop and Mandal, Anantapur District by the 2"^ 02 No.1216002, Beluguppa village vide D.Dis.No.F/125/2006, dated 20.12.2007. respondent counsel for the petitioner submitted that basing on the false vide Rc.No.B3/1070-c/2024, the period of suspension exceeded 90 03. The learned allegations 14.10.2024 was passed and moreover dated the impugned order days. Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted in nature and do not 04. The learned Assistant that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in warrants any interference. The State of Andhra Pradesh and In Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs the relevant portion of the decision reads as follows; 05. 1 Ors', 3. At the hearing, Sri. A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the the judgment of a learned Single D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, petitioner, has placed reliance on Judge of this Court in Guntur^ in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, the suspension set aside. I have carefully considered the said has to be revoked or judgment. '{2015)3 ALD 102 ; ^ 2005(1 )ALD847 W.P. No.27923 of 2024 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima , a Bench of this Court has held that the maximum period of Division 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. have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector (3 supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this has set aside the order of suspension based on the judgment 5. 1 Court of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of the ratio laid down in the said Punjabby holding that as per 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 (4 supra) and the licence itself contained a clause that observed that in that case the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the 6. The Division learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did 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 - not But we also rush to add that what is reasonable period of suspension must 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, careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal (4 supra) and Joint Collector (3 supra), 1 respectfully 7. On a Kumar ^1995 LawSuit(AP) 1015 " 1982 (1) see 31 4 W.P. No.27923 of 2024 , disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D.SambasivaRao(2 supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified 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.” In view of the above decision, the period of suspension cannot be extended for more than a reasonable time. In the aforesaid decision, it is held that 90 days can be taken as reasonable period. 06. In the present case, more than 90 days have lapsed since the date of passing of the impugned order, yet no enquiry has been conducted. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to conduct enquiry and pass a reasoned order within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, deems to be set aside without there being any further order. 07. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To principal secretary. Civil supplies department. State of Andhra 1. The Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Joint Collector, Kalayandurg, Ananthapur District. Divisional Officer, Kalyandurgam, Anantapur District. 4. The Tahasildar, Beluguppa Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. The Revenue It 5. One CC to M/s. M Hemalatha Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP For Civil Supplies ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC 0 HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.27923 of 2024 1 7 MAR 2025 | ^ Current Section . c> a: DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS