■I \ -V M' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVAT^^ (Special Original Jurisdicdon) \ CA MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JAl L ARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY Fi PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31094 OF 2024 Between: Ulava Yedukondalu, S/o Venkataiah, aged 34 years, Occ: MDU Ope R/o Vellaturu village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District I ^ ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ...Respondents 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 or direction, direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.85/2024 A dated 10-04-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated same is malafide. as the lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order Rc.No.85/2024-A dated 10-04-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER 1 © n BSB, J W.P.No.31094 of 2024 APHC010596612024 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: 31094/2024 Between: Ulava Yedukondalu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: r 2 BSB, J W.P.No.31094 of 2024 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 10-4-2024 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 Vellatur village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District.* In the month of December, 2020, 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 ioipugned order, suspended the appointment of the petitioner as MDU Operator on the ground that he participated in the election 3 BSBJ W.P.No.31094 of 2024 campaign for YSR Congress party without even conducting any enquiry. The petitioner did not violate any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and against the provisionsof the. Control Order, 2018. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though more 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 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 Conduct was in operation by then. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 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 X,- 4 BSB, J W.P.No.31094 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 5 BSB, W.P.No.31094 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 ^ sjjspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that 6 r*' BSBJ W.P.No.31094 of 2024 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 suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.” I 10. Though the impugned order was passed on 10.04.2024 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.31094 of 2024 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order Rc.No.85/2024-A, dated 10.04.2024 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to conduct enquiry as per law without being influenced by any of the observations of this Court in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// /Section officer To. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. 4. One CO to SRI. D KRISHNA MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. AVR HIGH COURT BSB,J / DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.31094 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS