\ C€ tN THE HtGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE (fe 11[ ( -O' >1 O' <5^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1435 OF 2025 /H ♦ Between: qh^n fu° aged about 74 years, Occ Fair Price ...Petitioner AND Ci'vtllunrtfi^^rn^r ^'■3“®®''’R®P- byte Principal Secretary Vdag^apTcIrAmaravall'"'^®^''""'^® Department, Secretariat, 2. The District Collector (CS), Bapatia District At Bapatia. Bapa'tirSc?™'®'°"®' Sub-Divisional DisfrS'^'' ibspector, Nizampatnam Mandal, Food, Magistrate, Repalle Bapatia ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.No. 350/2024-A2 dt. 29-10-2024 may more declaring the action of suspending the authorization of F.P.Shop No. 0754037 without referring the explanation dt. 29-10-2024 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dt. 21-10- 2024 bearing Rc.No. as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral. 616/2024-A2 colouable exercise of unconstitutional and powers and consequently set aside the same by 'v directing the 3rd respondent herein to the explanation dt. 29-10-2024, and to grant such. pass orders afresh by considering IA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi . Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to direct the respondent No.3 herein to allow the may be petitioner to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0754037 Kothapalem village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Bapatia District impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.No. 350/2024-A2 dt. 29- 10-2024 issued by the respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. by suspending the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010025082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 1435/2025 Between: Moka Somaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J W.P.No.l435of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; ‘..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3'^'^ respondent in issuing the impugned order bearing Procs.Rc.No.350/2024-A2, dt.29-10-2024 suspending the authorization of F.P Shop No.0754037 without referring the explanation dt.29-10-2024 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 21-10-2024 bearing Rc.No.616/2024-A2, as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, unconstitutional and colourable exercise of powers and consequently set aside the same by directing the 3 respondent herein to pass orders afresh by considering the explanation, dt.29-10-2024, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” more rd 2. Heard Sri K. Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.0754037 at Kothapalem village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Bapatia a. 3 BSB,J W.P.No.1435 of 2025 % District about more than 40 years ago and he has been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from 19.09.2024, the Food Inspector (CS), any corner. While so, on Nizampatnam, inspected the shop of the petitioner on the ground that there is discrepancy in the stock, seized the stock and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. b. Basing on the report of the Food Inspector (CS), Nizampatnam, respondent-The Revenue Divisional Officer, Repalle, Bapatia notice vide Rc.No.616/2024-A2, dated rd the 3 district, issued show-cause 21.10.2024, framing the following charges: That there was total quantity of PDS rice Charge No.1: the closing balance on e-pos is 61.85 quintals but as per whereas the physical balance available on ground at the time of inspection is 6.75 kgs. Charge No.2: That there was total quantity of sugar packets per the closing balance on e-pos is 103 packets, but whereas the physical balance available on ground at the time of inspection is ‘0’ packets.” as c. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29.10.2024. Thereafter, to the surprise of the petitioner, the impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.No.350/2024-A2, dated 29.10.2024, was passed suspending the authorization of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted explanation on 4 BSB, J W.P.No.1435 of 2025 29.10.2024, i.e., within the stipulated time of seven (7) days. However, without waiting for receipt of the explanation of the petitioner and without considering the explanation offered by him, the respondent issued the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of suspension has been in force for than 90 days, yet, the enquiry has not been commenced and more concluded. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record written instructions, vide Rc.No.54/2025-C, dated 18.01.2024, and submitted that there was huge variation in the PDS rice and also sugar as indicated below: 5. Online stock Ground stock Issued stock Total stock Received stock Opening balance Commodity Difference SI. No. 61.85 6.75 58.50 120.35 70.00 50.35 PDS rice 1 (-) 55.10 103 0 397 500 500 0 Sugar 2 (-)103 packets packets packets He further submitted that there is an error in the proceedings, dated 29.10.2024 by showing the quantity in kilograms instead of in quintals. 6. The High Court of Judicature (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) at Hyderabad in Sandraboyina Guravaiah BSBJ W.P,No.l435 of 2025 VS. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.\ wherein it was held at paras 3 to 6 as follows: 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 [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 bv 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 3. ^2015(3) ALD 102 V 6 BSB, J W.P.No.1435 of 2025 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 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, _^e 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.” Though the impugned order was passed on 29.10.2024 suspending the authorization 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. 7. In view of the above 7 W.P.No.l435of2025 m legal proposition, the respondent authorities shall expeditiously conclude the enquiry or else, the order of suspension cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3'"' respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Bapatia District to pass orders, as per law, by duly conducting the enquiry within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the impugned order, dated 29.10.2024, gets automatically set aside without any further orders. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. A NAGAMMA ASSISTANT,REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector (CS), Bapatia District At Bapatia. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Repalle, Bapatia District. 4. The Civil Supplies Food Inspector, Nizampatnam Mandal, Bapatia District. 5. One CC to Sri K Joseph, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 ORDER andh/i^ ^ X 2 1 FEB 2n?5 I ^ . Curreni »dC»on ^ SS^CSPATC''^ WP.No.1435 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS