IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31121 OF 2024 Between: Shaik Attar Nagoor Vali, S/o Khadar Masthan, aged 32 years, Occ: MDU Operator, R/o H.NO. 19-652, Vinukonda Palnadu District. Town and Mandal, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. Civil ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus praying that in may or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.85/2024-A dated 26-03- 2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer Narasaraopet, Palanadu District. 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 suspend the impugned order Rc.No.85/2024-A dated 26-03-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: i 1 BSBJ W.P.No.31121of 2024 APHC010596682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31121/2024 Between: Shaik Attar Nagoor Vali ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: I D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 'k-m 2 BSB, J W.P.No.31121 of 2024 4) ORDER; This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief; “....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.85/2024-A dated 26-3-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is mala fide and pass such orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of case.” 2. Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows; The petitioner is a permanent resident of Vinukonda Town and Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District. He was appointed as a Mobile Dispensing Unit (MDU) Operator for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders and he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any quarter. While so, the 2"^^ respondent, under the impugned order. suspended the appointment of the petitioner as MDU Operator on the ground that he participated in the election campaign for YSR Congress 3 BSB,J W.P.No.31121 of 2024 party without even conducting any enquiry, violate any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The petitioner did not The impugned order is without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though than 90 days lapsed since the date of order of suspension of the dealership of the petitioner, till now, the enquiry has not been commenced and concluded, and therefore, continuation of order of suspension of the petitioner is illegal. It is further contended that the appropriate authority in this case is the District Collector, but not the Revenue Divisional Officer since the Code of Conductwas in operation by then. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. more 5. Perused the record. 6. Clause 12(s) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 reads as follows: “12. Licensing & Responsibilities /duties of Fair Price Shop Dealers;- (a) to (r) XX XX xx 4 BSB, J W.P.No.31121 of 2024 (s) no fair price shop dealer shall take part in any political activity directly or indirectly in any General/Municipal/ • Panchayat Raj elections, hampering the public distribution system and the authorization granted to them under the Order shall be cancelled, if she/he was found involved in such political activity/canvassing.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the impugned order, the participation of the petitioner in the political activity is shown to be in violation of Clause 12(s) of the Control Order, 2018, without any observation that such participation resulted in hampering public distribution system which is essential to be established and found, even if the allegation of participation is true. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that he had no written instructions and requested to pass appropriate orders. The High Court of Judicature (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) at Hyderabad in Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.\ wherein it was held at paras 3 to 6 as follows: 9. 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. '2015(3) ALD 102 I 5 BSBJ W.P.No.31121 of 2024 Joint Collector, Guntur [2005 (1) ALD 847], 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. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima [1996 (1) APLJ 285], 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 (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 M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab [AIR 1982 (SC) 65] 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 M/s. Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (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. 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 A? 6 BSB, J W.P.No.31121of2024 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 factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry". 6. On a careful analysis of the judgments in M/s. Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (supra) and Joint Collector (supra), I respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D. Sambasiva Rao (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 suspensioncould be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending ■ upon various factors.” ] \ 10. Though the impugned order was passed on 26.03.2024 suspending the appointment of the petitioner for an indefinite period and even after passing of 90 days, there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no observation that the alleged participation of the petitioner in the election campaign resulted in hampering the public distribution system. For all these reasons, the impugned order cannot be allowed to continue to operate. 7 \ BSB, J W.P.No.31121 of 2024 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order Rc.No.85/2024-A, dated 26.03.2024 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. However, the respondent authorities at liberty to conduct enquiry as per law without being influenced by any of the observations of this Court in this order. 11. are There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. assist assistant registrar officer //TRUE COPY// ^ECTlit, To 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. 4. One CC to Sri D Krishna Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies. High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies SK HIGH COURT DATED: 06/01/2025 i ORDER WP.No.31121 of 2024 g 21 ? -1 Co . Current beciion *5;5££SpaTCH^? ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS