APHC010675012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 35358/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK HUSSAIN BABU, S/O AKBAR SAHEB, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O GARKAPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT -522614 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIED DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522238 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522601 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522614 ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.l808/2024-G dated 01-09-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J W.P.No.35358 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 to suspend the impugned order Rc.No.l808/2024-G dated 01-09-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.35358 of 2025 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned order Rc.No.l808/2024- G dated 01-09-2025 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide...” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for the Shop No.0721004 of Garikapadu village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District, after following due selection procedure. The petitioner’s authorization was renewed from time to time and the same is in force as on today. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has been running the subject fair price shop without any complaint from the card holders or the authorities. b) While the matter stood thus, due to a change in Government, the 3rd respondent insisted the petitioner to submit his resignation to the subject fair price shop. When the petitioner refused to do so, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda along with the Village Revenue Officer of Garikapadu village, inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 17.08.2024. Though they could not find any variations during the course of their inspection, they prepared a panchanama with all false and fictitious variations in the stock, showing a shortage or 3 quintals of fortified rice. Basing on the report 4 VS,J W.P.No.35358 of 2025 submitted by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry vide proceedings Rc.No.1546/2024-G dated 22.08.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.20063 of 2024. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2024 by setting aside the suspension order, and this Court further held that the said order does not preclude the respondents from conducting enquiry, if any, initiated against the petitioner to be held in accordance with law. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that no such enquiry was conducted by the respondents in pursuance of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.20063 of 2024. d) However, with an intention to remove the petitioner from the subject fair price shop once again on 11.08.2025, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Narasaraopet along with some other officers have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop in the absence of the petitioner and though they could not find any variations in the stock, prepared a panchanama and left the shop. Thereafter, basing on the report submitted by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Narasaraopet the 2nd respondent issued a Show-Cause notice on 20.08.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a period of seven (7) days, duly framing three charges as against the petitioner. e) The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that though he has submitted a detailed explanation to the said Show-Cause notice on 5 VS,J W.P.No.35358 of 2025 30.08.2025, the 2nd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry vide Rc.No.1808/2024-G, dated 01.09.2025. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished copy of the instructions of the 2nd respondent, where in it is stated that in pursuance of the order dated 01.09.2025 placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension, the fair price shop was handed over to the Village Revenue Assistant, Garikapadu village, for distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders. 5. On perusal of the Show-Cause notice, it can be observed that three charges have been framed as against the petitioner. First charge is that the petitioner has purchased the rice stocks from the cardholders and kept the same in a house opposite to the fair price shop in the village, thereby violating Clause 21(c ) of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. The second charge is that the petitioner is residing at Kanumalacheruvu village of Bollapalli Mandal but not in Garikapadu village of Bollapalli Mandal and that the petitioner visits Garikapadu village and resides there only from 1st to 6th of every month i.e., during the distribution period of essential commodities, which is in violation of the condition under Clause 12(3) of E.C.Act, 1955. Third charge is that the 6 VS,J W.P.No.35358 of 2025 petitioner has not opened the fair price shop in working days till the end of every month and has opened the shop only for 5 or 6 days in a month, which is a violation of the conditions under Clause No.14 of the E.C.Act, 1955. 6. The only grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though he has submitted explanation denying each and every charge and has also stated that he is residing in Garikapadu village of Bollapalli Mandal, in spite of the same, the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 01.09.2025, however, till date, no enquiry was conducted, despite the lapse of 90 days. 7. 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 the 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 VS,J W.P.No.35358 of 2025 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.” 8. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 01.09.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, even after the lapse of 90 days, the enquiry against the petitioner has not commenced. In view of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the respondents have failed to complete the enquiry within a “reasonable period,” i.e., 90 days, this Court finds that the 2nd respondent has not concluded the enquiry within a reasonable period. Accordingly, the suspension order dated 01.09.2025 is hereby revoked, and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 9. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension order, dated 01.09.2025 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer. Further, as the enquiry has 8 VS,J W.P.No.35358 of 2025 not yet been completed, the 2nd respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to supply essential commodities to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.12.2025 KGR