APHC010569702024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29598/2024 Between: Ramana Bramaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who suspended the authorization of FP shop dealer through his proceedings, dated 11-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3149/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings of 4th Respondent- R.D.O., Ongole dt.11-11-2024 in Rc.No.1/3149/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer. 2 JS,J W.P.No.29598/2024 Shop No 0829003 of Chimakurthy Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the ……………..” 2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent dealer at Fair Price Shop No.0829003, of Chimakurthy Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. On 03.10.2024, the 6th respondent/Food Inspector inspected the shop and initiated 6-A proceedings. Consequently, the 4th respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice on 23.10.2024, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his response on 08.11.2024. Subsequently, on 11.11.2024, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order, suspending the petitioner’s dealership of the petitioner’s fair price shop. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without conducting any enquiry and considering the explanation made by the petitioner, the respondents have suspended the authorization of the petitioner. The competent authority vested with power as disciplinary authority is bound to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner/fair price shop dealer alleging certain allegations within reasonable time. There should be no unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in A Neelima vs Joint Collector, Kurnool1. A learned single Judge of this Court held at Para No.13 as extracted hereinunder: 11996 (1) APLJ 266 3 JS,J W.P.No.29598/2024 “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 the 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. 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. Neelima 2 a Division Bench of this Court observed at Para No.2 as extracted hereinunder: “We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab3 (1) 65. In that case, the prescribed form of license 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 21996 Law Suit (AP) 956 4 JS,J W.P.No.29598/2024 upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.” 6. Heard. 7. In the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court, as extracted supra, and in the considered opinion of this Court, 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 a “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed based on the report of the 6th respondent dated 11.11.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension order, dated 11.11.2024, issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 20.03.2025 KAS 5 JS,J W.P.No.29598/2024 166 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29598/2024 Date: 20.03.2025 KAS