APHC010594742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31341/2024 Between: K Jayamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.31341 of 2024 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in temporarily removing the authorization the petitioner’s fair price shop No.0202024 situated at Goipara Village, Gummalakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Andhra Pradesh vide Rc.No.246/2023/SA-B dated 16.08.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass…” 02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was a dealer of fair price shop No.0202024 situated at Goipara Village, Gummalakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing commodities to the card holders without any remarks. While so, basing on the complaint given by the Sarpanch and the member of MPTC stating that the petitioner was not supplying commodities to the card holders properly, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.07.2024 to the petitioner calling for her explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 24.07.2024. But, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.246/2023/SA-B dated 16.08.2024, by terminating the dealership of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings dated 16.08.2024. 3 W.P.No.31341 of 2024 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without indicating as to whether the ration card holders were examined by the 3rd respondent to ascertain that specific number of card holders were not supplied commodities during November, 2023 or June, 2024, an allegation was made that commodities were not properly supplied to the card holders during these months. He further submitted that it is the MDU operator, who supplies commodities to the card holders and not the dealer and therefore, the charge itself is illegal. It is also submitted by him that though the impugned order suspending the dealership of the petitioner was passed about more than 90 days ago, till now the enquiry has not been commenced and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 04. Though the petition was filed on 26.12.2024, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies represented that he has no written instructions. 05. It is pertinent to mention here the decision of this High Court in Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors1, it was held at paras 3 to 6 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, Guntur 2 , in support of his submission that 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. 1 2015 (3) ALD 102 2 2005(1)ALD847 4 W.P.No.31341 of 2024 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima 3 , 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 Punjab4 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 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 3 1995 LawSuit(AP) 1015 4 1982 (1) SCC 31 5 W.P.No.31341 of 2024 factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. On a careful analysis of the judgments in Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (3 supra) and Joint Collector (2 supra), I 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.” 06. In spite of sufficient time given, no instructions were communicated by the concerned officials to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, nor was held enquiry in spite of completion of period more than 90 days since the date of the impugned order. It is a fit case to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition, more particularly as it is for an indefinite period. 07. In result, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.08.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 20.01.2025 NSM 6 W.P.No.31341 of 2024 97 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31341/2024 Date: 20.01.2025 NSM