APHC010617042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31948/2025 Between: 1. OM PRAKASH REDDY,, S/O. G. RAMALINGA REDDY, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1227046, R/O. JANGAMREDDIPALLI VILLAGE, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, NARPALA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.D1CS/1683/2025 dated 2 VS,J W.P.No.31948 of 2025 03.10.2025 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop held by the petitioner at Jangamreddipalli Village (Shop.No.1227046) of Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of Jangamreddipalli Village (Shop.No.1227046) of Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District and pass such 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop at Jangamreddipalli Village (Shop.No.1227046) of Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District by vide4th respondent the suspending the proceedings of Rc.No.D1CS/1683/2025 dated 03.10.2025, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.31948 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.D1CS/1683/2025 dated 03.10.2025 by suspending the authorization of the petitioner as fair price shop held by the petitioner at Jangamreddipalli Village (Shop.No.1227046) of Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District without there being any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold F.P. shop Dealership of Jangamreddipalli Village (Shop.No.1227046) of Narpala Mandal, Anantapur District and pass such….” 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1227046 of Jangamreddipalli village, Narpala mandal, Anantapur district in the year 2010 and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders ever since, without there being any adverse remarks against him. 3. While the matter stood thus, the inspecting officials have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 05.08.2025 and found a variation of (+)83.45 kilograms of PDS rice and (+)55 number of sugar packets (each weighing ½ kilograms). As such, the 5th respondent submitted a report to the 4th respondent, recommending to initiate disciplinary action as against the 4 VS,J W.P.No.31948 of 2025 petitioner herein, basing on which, the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.08.2025 seeking his explanation within seven (7) days. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said notice on 30.08.2025, the 4th respondent, without considering the same has suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry vide the impugned proceedings dated 03.10.2025, by observing that a deterrent punishment is necessary to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the entire material available on record. 5. Admittedly, basing on the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him; pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.08.2025 duly stating that he could not distribute the commodities to the cardholders as he was engaged in works pertaining to marriage of his brother. After receipt of the said explanation, the 4th respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization by observing as under: “I felt that deterrent punishment is necessary to keep away the FP shop dealer from the pubic distribution system to safe guard the Interest of the 5 VS,J W.P.No.31948 of 2025 poor cardholders and also for smooth functioning of Public Distribution system. In view of the above, I hereby suspend the FP Shop authorization held by Sri Om Prakash Reddy, Permanent F.P. Shop Dealer, Jangamreddipalli Village, Narpala Mandal, pending enquiry for passing final orders within 90 days from the date of receipt of this orders.” 6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s authorization over the subject fair price shop is placed under suspension pending enquiry which has to be completed within 90 days from the date of suspension. This Court finds no error committed by the 4th respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension, as the variation of stock found in the petitioner’s fair price shop during inspection is beyond the permissible limits of 1.5% as per the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. However, the 4th respondent, in the impugned suspension order, ought not to have taken a view that a deterrent punishment is necessary for the petitioner, because, such an observation may give rise to the presumption that the 4th respondent is predetermined regarding the action to be taken against the petitioner. Further, it would be premature to interfere with the issue at this stage because the petitioner approached this Court challenging the suspension order dated 03.10.2025 pending enquiry, which in fact should be completed within 90 days, even as 6 VS,J W.P.No.31948 of 2025 per the judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1, wherein a Division Bench of this Court 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. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is disposed of and the 4th respondent shall complete the enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, however, uninfluenced by his observation in the impugned order with regard to deterrent punishment, as discussed above. It is needless to state 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 VS,J W.P.No.31948 of 2025 that the said enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the Control Order, 2018, by duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 18.11.2025 Gss