APHC010546222024 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: 28318/2024 Between: 1. SRIPATI RAMANAMMA, W/O. SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0931001, R/O. VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, MANUBOLUMANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, ,REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CS-I) DEPT.,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANUBOLUMANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. SMT ALSHETTY SHAILAJA, W/O. VENKATA RAMANAIAH, TEMPORARY DEALER, R/O. VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, MANUBOLU MANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT'S ORDER DT.23/12/2024 IN IA 2/2024. ...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 to 2 declare the action of the 3RD respondent in issuing Proceedings Vide Rc.D.No. 1324/2024, Dated 13.10.2024 (Signed on 13/11/2024) suspending the authorization of the petitioner's Fair Price Shop for the Shop No. 0931001,Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandalam, SPSR Nellore District., as illegal and arbitrary, violation of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the Provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, by setting-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents nos.2 to 4 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P. shop No.01 Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandalam, SPSR Nellore District and pass IA 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 leased to direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner’s F.P. Shop No.0931001,Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandalam, SPSR Nellore District., by suspending the Proceedings Vide Rc.D.No. 1324/2024, Dated 13.10.2024, issued by the 3 RD respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore and continuing the Petitioner’s F.P. Shop authorization, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pas IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to implead the proposed Respondent as RespondentNo.5 in the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJU GUBBALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.D.No.1324/2024, dated 13.10.2024 (signed on 13.11.2024) suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop for the Shop No.0931001, Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018, by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to release the Essential Commodities to the petitioner for the F.P.Shop No.01, Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass such other order or orders…” 2. (a) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for the Shop No.0931001, Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing the essential commodities to the card holders without any complaint from them. (b)While the matter being so, basing on a complaint made by 40 villagers of Venkannapalem Village that the petitioner is not distributing all the essential commodities to them except rice, an inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar and basing on the inquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar on 20.08.2024, the 3rd respondent herein issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation from the petitioner within seven (7) days. But, however, thereafter, the 3rd respondent has passed impugned orders on 13.10.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization indefinitely on the sole 4 ground that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice dated 01.11.2024. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader in support of the said impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent has stated that though a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.11.2024 calling for an explanation within seven (7) days, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation. As such, the 3rd respondent has no alternative except to suspend the petitioner’s authorization. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that except referring to the inquiry report of the Tahsildar dated 20.08.2024 and as well the show-cause notice dated 01.11.2024, nowhere it is mentioned as to the date of complaint made by the villagers. It can also be observed that the suspension was for an indefinite period which is in violation of the Control Order and as well as by law. 6. In the case at hand, the impugned proceedings do not refer to any inquiry. Though the impugned proceedings are dated 13.11.2024 admittedly, as of now, no inquiry has been conducted by the 3rd respondent beyond 90 days. 7. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court inA.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool 5 and others1. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No.13 as extracted hereinunder: 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 authorization, 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 authorization of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended 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 authorization. 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. 8. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, the respondents therein preferred appeal viz., Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima2, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, while agreeing with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment referred 1st supra, held as follows: 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 1 1996 (1) APLJ 266 2 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 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. 9. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 13.10.2024 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 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 13.10.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 10. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 13.10.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. The respondents are directed to release the essential commodities to the petitioner. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in 7 accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 08.09.2025 KA 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28318/2024 Date: 08.09.2025 KA