APHC010587372024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 30644/2024 Between: Sri Gumma Ashok ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J W.P.No.30644 of 2024 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition No. 30644 of 2024 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “……..to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore District the 4th Respondent herein in Rc.H.772/2024, dated 29.07.2024, wherein kept under provisional suspension of the petitioner’s authorization as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders……” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner has been a permanent dealer of the fair price shop since 2018 and has been distributing essential commodities to the ration card holders without any interruptions. However, the Tahsildar received a representation from the villagers alleging that the petitioner has been irregular in distributing essential commodities to the ration card holders in the village. It was also alleged that the petitioner has been troubling the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Backward Class (BC) communities in the village, committing irregularities in weighing the ration, and diverting essential commodities intended for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) into the black market for unlawful gains. Based on the villagers' representation, the Tahsildar conducted an inquiry and found the petitioner was negligent in distributing essential commodities. The 4th respondent suspended the 3 BSB, J W.P.No.30644 of 2024 authorization without conducting any enquiry as mandated under the Control Order, without issuing a notice, and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner. Furthermore, the suspension order, issued on 29.07.2024, does not specify the period of suspension. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without any clear charges and without specifying the period of suspension and that the impugned order has been in force for about 150 days, whereas the reasonable period for such suspension is 90 days. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the has not received any instructions. 6. It is settled law that suspension of authorisation cannot be made for an indefinite period. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention the decision of this Court in 1Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Ors', wherein, it was held at para Nos.3 to 7 as follows: 3. “At the hearing, Sri. A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur², in support of his submission that 1 2015 (3) ALD 102 4 BSB, J W.P.No.30644 of 2024 if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, the suspension has to be revoked or set aside. I have carefully considered the said judgment. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima a Division Bench of this Court has held that the maximum period of 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. 5. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector (2 supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of suspension based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab by holding that as per the ratio laid down in the said 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 (3 supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. 6. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did not 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 5 BSB, J W.P.No.30644 of 2024 the following observation - 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. On a careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (3 supra) and Joint Collector (2 supra), 1 respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D.Sambasiva Rao(1 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”. 7. In view of the above legal proposition, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, however passing of the final order in the enquiry by the respondent authorities is not precluded. 8. In result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 and the authorization of the petitioner shall be continued as usual. It is made clear that this order does not preclude concluding enquiry, if any, by the respondent authorities as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date: 27.01.2025 klk 6 BSB, J W.P.No.30644 of 2024 217 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI 7 BSB, J W.P.No.30644 of 2024 WRIT PETITION No.30644 OF 2024 Date: 27.01.2025 klk