IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) ” :: AMARAV the THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 2624« DF JAGADAM Between: Mandal.BapatIa District, Andhra ^ and ...Petitioner AND 2. The Collector (CS), Bapatia District, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bapatia, A.P. Chirala, Bapatia District A P 4. The Tahsildar, Inkollu Mandal, Inkollu, Bapatia District, A.P ' Disfrfct AP.'"”"®® Inkollu Mandal, Inkollu, Bapatia ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue an Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may I appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ the 3^"^ respondent in i of Mandamus, declaring the action in issuing proceedings bearing Rc. H/842/2024 J suspended the authorization of dated 01-10-2024 wherein of the petitioner Fair and Mandal Price Shop Dealer of Shop Bapatia District No. 0825001, Inkollu Village pending enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of APSTPDS (Control) Order 2018 ^ ™ ' 2018 and consequently set aside lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No. 0825001, Inkollu Village & Mandal, Bapatia District by suspending the impugned interim suspension order bearing Rc. H/842/2024 dated 01-10-2024 issued by the 3 disposal of the main Writ Petition. rd respondent, pending Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010512012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE / [3459] r PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26248/2024 Between: S.Bala Subrahmanyam ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is 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 a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in issuing proceedings bearing Rc.H/842/2024, dated 01.10.2024 wherein suspended the authorization of the petitioner fair price shop No. 0825001, Inkollu Village and Mandal, Bapatia District, pending enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of APSTPDS (Control) Order, 2018 and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” 2. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Perused th'e record. — 2 The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent 3. fair price shop dealer for the last 40 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to change in Government, the respondents want to accommodate the person of their choice and thereby issued show cause notice based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 27.09.2024. The 3^^^ respondent without considering the explanation, suspended the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop. He further averts that when the petitioner has specifically stated that the e-pos machine is with the MDU operator who went to distribute the stock, the respondents, without verifying the same and without giving opportunity, have suspended the authorization. Learned counsel also submits that though 90 days have lapsed, the respondents have not concluded the enquiry and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be revoked and further submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this High Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool and others^. A learned single Judge of this Court held at para No. 13 as extracted hereinunder: 4. 13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation of the authorisation, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which 1996(1)APU 266 3 the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended In the Control orders, it must be held as declared by Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or otherwise of the authorisation. If for any reason the enquiry is not completed within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the appointing authority or the Appellate authority or the Revision ary authority. 5. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the Respondents therein, and while disposing the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^, a Division Bench of this High Court observed at para No.2 as extracted hereinunder: 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. I \ I 2 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 4 \ In the light of the observations of the Division Bench, as 6. extracted supra, this Court is of considered opinion that as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 90 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 3^^ respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 01.10.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2"^^ respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 01.10.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SURYANADH REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The F^incipal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velaqapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Bapatia District, Bapatia, A.P. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, Bapatia District, A.P. 4. The Tahsildar, , Inkollu Mandal, Inkollu, Bapatia District, A.P. 5. The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Inkollu Mandal, Inkollu District, A.P. 6. One CC to Smt Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies Bapatia RAM '\ •s HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 ORDER '‘4 /a WP.No.26248 of 2024 -Y* 2 2 may 2525 ^ O J Co DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS