APHC010537962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27999/2025 Between: 1. LAXMI SWASAKTHI GROUP, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, SMT.K.VENKATAMMA W/O RAJARAM, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC F.P. SHOP DEALER FOR SHOP NO.1384075 M.S.NAGAR VILLAGE, NANDYAL URBAN MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, NANDYAL DIST., AT NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NANDYAL RURAL MANDAL, NANDYAL DIST. ...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 Writ Order or Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025 dt 24-5-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1384075, M.S.Nagar Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State 2 VS,J W.P.No.27999 of 2025 Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 24-5-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual, 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 to Suspend the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025 dt:24-5-2025 in respect of FP Shop No.1384075, M.S.Nagar Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., by continuing the petitioner as dealer as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.27999 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.CS/492/2025 dt 24-5-2025 suspending the petitioners authorization in respect of FP Shop No.1384075, M.S.Nagar Village, Nandyal Urban Mandal, Nandyal Dist., without assigning any valid reasons and without following the procedure as contemplated under AP State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the impugned order dt 24-5-2025 by directing the Respondents to continue petitioner as FP Shop dealer as usual…. “ 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer on 25.01.2021 on a temporary basis in pursuance of the resignation submitted by the permanent dealer for shop no.1384075 situated at M.S.Nagar Village, Nandyal Urban, Nandyal District. The petitioner’s authorization is valid up to 31.03.2025 and she has also paid the renewal fee on 04.02.2025. b) While things stood thus, on 01.03.2025 at about 05.30 P.M., the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) Nandyal, along with his subordinates, inspected the petitioner’s shop and verified the stock position by comparing the ground stock 4 VS,J W.P.No.27999 of 2025 with the e-Pos Machine. During the said inspection, the officials have not found any variations. However, the 4th respondent noted some omnibus charges and submitted his report to the 3rd respondent, who in turn issued a show-cause notice dated 03.05.2025 to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why her authorization should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 16.05.2025. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though no variations were found in the ground stock available in the petitioner’s fair price shop during the course of inspection, the respondents framed three omnibus charges as against the petitioner with an intention to cancel her authorization and issued a show-cause notice without even conducting any enquiry as mandated under the Control Order. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the said explanation submitted on 16.05.2025 was endorsed by the 3rd respondent on 19.05.2025, but without referring to or considering the same, the respondents passed the impugned order suspending the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry and specifically stating that the maximum period of suspension is only for 90 days. Further, the Tahsildar, Nandyal Urban Mandal was directed to make alternative arrangements for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of petitioner’s fair price shop. Challenging which, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5 VS,J W.P.No.27999 of 2025 4. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 13.10.2025, this court passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 24.05.2025. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on oral instructions, has stated that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 13.10.2025, the petitioner is being continued as fair price shop dealer for the subject shop. 7. It is the primary contention of the petitioner that since the date of suspension, 90 days has been lapsed, but till date no enquiry has not concluded by the authorities. 8. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, there is no reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 16.05.2025 though it was served on the 3rd respondent. No finding has been given on the said explanation. It can also be observed that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended pending enquiry which admittedly has to be completed within 90 days, but, in spite of lapse of the said period, the enquiry against the petitioner is not yet concluded. 9. 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 6 VS,J W.P.No.27999 of 2025 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. 10. In the present case also, though the impugned order was passed on 24.05.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, even after lapse of 90 days, the enquiry has not commenced. 11. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment and in the considered opinion of this Court, since the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case within the “reasonable period” i.e. 90 days, 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 7 VS,J W.P.No.27999 of 2025 this Court affirms that that the 3rd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and hence the suspension order, 24.05.2025 is liable to be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 12. 12. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed, revoking the suspension order, dated 24.05.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and in view of the same, the petitioner shall be continued to run the Fair Price Shop. However, it is needless to mention that this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in accordance with the law uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 10.11.2025 KGR/JAK