APHC010601542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31376/2024 Between: 1. KATTA VENKATA RAMANAIAH, S/O.VENKAIAH F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.5, KATTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 3. THE COLLECTORCS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOIE3. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KONDIPI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE ENFORCEFMENT DEPUTY TAHSIIDAR, SINGARAYKONDA 7. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORVIGILANCE CIVIL SUPPLIES, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 8. BOKKISAM SESHAMMA, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, PRESIDENT-SHG, R/O. KATTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KONDAPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT'S ORDER DT. 20/01/2025 IN IA 1/2025. 2 VS,J W.P.No.31376 of 2024 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of dt.26-12-2024 in Rc.I/3446/2024, whoRespondent No.4, suspended the dealership of petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and against principals of natural justice and without given opportunity to petitioner and consequently set-aside the proceedings of 4th respondent, dt.26-12-2024 in Rc.I/3446/2024, and pass IA 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 pleased to stay the impugned orders, dt.26-12-2024 in Rc.I/3446/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner to be impleaded as Party / Proposed Respondent No. 8 in W. P. No. 31376 of 2024 and also in the pending Interlocutory Applications therein, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.31376 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of respondent No.4, dated 26.12.2024 in Rc.I/3446/2024, who suspended the dealership of petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and against principals of natural justice and without given opportunity to petitioner and consequently set-aside the proceedings of 4th respondent, dated 26.12.2024 in Rc.I/3446/2024 ….” 2. Brief facts of the case as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.5 of Kattavaripalem Village, Kondepi Mandal, Prakasam District on temporary basis in the year 2004 and was subsequently appointed on a permanent basis in the year 2009. b) While the matter being so, basing on a complaint made by some villagers to the Hon’ble Minister for Social Welfare, Disabled & Senior Citizen Welfare, Sachivalayam & Village Volunteer, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 06.07.2024, alleging that the PDS rice meant for the poor people was being diverted to the black market by the petitioner and that the petitioner is not having requisite educational qualifications, the 6th respondent inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 10.07.2024 and found no variation in the stock and submitted his report accordingly. c) Again on 12.07.2024, the 7th respondent conducted a further inspection on the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and submitted a report to the 3rd 4 VS,J W.P.No.31376 of 2024 respondent/Collector(CS), Ongole. Basing on the said reports, the 3rd respondent issued a show-notice dated 28.09.2024 to the petitioner, directing him to appear before the 3rd respondent on 05.10.2024. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Collector(CS), Ongole on the said date and submitted his oral explanation. Aggrieved by the said show-cause notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23493 of 2024, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024, which reads as under: “….the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 28.09.2024, issued vide Rc.CS3/94/2024 is set aside, while dismissing the petition against the 8th respondent. This order does not preclude the respondent authorities from making verification of the educational qualification of the petitioner from the concerned.” d) In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 21.10.2024, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2024, which do not clearly state whether the action pertains to suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop authorization. Challenging the said impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. A perusal of the operative portion of the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2024 indicates that the petitioner’s authorization is stated to be “hereby suspended/cancelled with immediate effect, pending finalization of enquiry”. A plain reading of the same establishes that the said action pertains only to suspension of the petitioner’s authorization, but not cancellation, as the order 5 VS,J W.P.No.31376 of 2024 remains pending subject to finalization of enquiry. It is further noted that the Tahsildar, Kondapi was also directed to make alternate arrangements immediately to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has submitted that the respondents did not commit any error in passing the impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 6. As the enquiry was not completed within 90 days from the date of suspension, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1 , wherein a Division Bench held as follows: 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1982 (S.C.), 1965. In that case, the prescribed form of licence 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 upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 VS,J W.P.No.31376 of 2024 7. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 26.12.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period and even after an elapse of 90 days, there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the Respondents in the present case within the “reasonable period” i.e. 90 days, this Court affirms that that the 4th respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 26.12.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2024. However, in view of the fact that the third-party interest appears to have already been created pursuant to the impugned proceedings dated 26.12.2024, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to direct the 4th respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.09.2025 KGR