APHC010137412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8343/2022 Between: 1. VENKATAIAH,, S/O RAGAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP.NO.0939025 OF GOVINDAPALLI VILLAGE, KOTA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 topleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Rc.D.219/2020, dt.13.08.2020 issued by the Joint Collector, SPS Nellore, the 2nd respondent herein suspending the authorization of the petitioner F.P. Shop No.0939025 of Govindapalli village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and continuing the same under prolonged suspension as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) 2 VS,J W.P.No.8343 of 2022 Order, 2018 and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop No.0939025 of Govindapalli village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by suspending the order of the 2nd respondent in in Rc.D.219/2020, dt.13.08.2020, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.8343 of 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Rc.D.219/2020, dt.13.08.2020 issued by the Joint Collector, SPS Nellore, the 2nd respondent herein suspending the authorization of the petitioner F.P. Shop No.0939025 of Govindapalli village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and continuing the same under prolonged suspension as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the essential commodities to the petitioner F.P. Shop..…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer of shop No.0939025 of Govindapalli Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. He has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders for more than 35 years without there being any complaint from any corner. b) While so, the 2nd respondent issued orders dated 13.08.2020 suspending the petitioner’s authorization under Section 8(4) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, basing on the report submitted by the Sub-Collector, Gudur dated 18.04.2020. In the said suspension order, it has been stated that on receipt of a complaint from the villagers of Vavilladoruvu, Alivelamangapuram H/o Kothapatnam Village of Kota Mandal against the petitioner alleging distribution of rice and chana with under-weighment to the cardholders, an enquiry was conducted with the 4 VS,J W.P.No.8343 of 2022 cardholders, and on cross check, it was noticed that there was a variation in the quantities of essential commodities distributed to 106 cardholders. However, the said impugned orders were passed without issuing any show- cause notice, as required under the principles of natural justice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner. Moreover, though the order was purportedly issued under Section 8(4) of the APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the suspension was made indefinite. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 01.04.2022, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to supply essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop by suspending the order of the 2nd respondent in Rc.D.219/2020, dated 13.08.2020. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry without issuing any show cause notice and without conducting any enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner. 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 5 VS,J W.P.No.8343 of 2022 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 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 the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 13.08.2020 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 2nd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 VS,J W.P.No.8343 of 2022 period” and the suspension order dated 13.08.2020 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 8. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 13.08.2020 of the 2nd respondent and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop dealer till any further disciplinary proceedings are initiated as against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.11.2025 KGR