IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29109 OF 2024 Between: Mekala Seetha Reddy, S/o. Lakshmi Reddy, aged 36 Years Kommavaram Village, FP Shop No. 0814030, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. R/o. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Tahasildar, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing suspension order through Rc. No. I/3429/2024 dated 3D. 11.2024 without considering the petitioner's explanation and also providing personal hearing passing the suspension order as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Essential 14 Commodities Act and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold Shop No. 0814030 of Kommavaram Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court 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 Shop No. 0814030 of Kommavaram Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District by suspending the proceedings of 4th respondent in Rc. No. i/3429/2024 dated 30.11.2024, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010559822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29109/2024 Between: Mekala Seetha Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MARELLARADHA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.P.No.29109 of 2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following relief: ...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one In the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing suspension order through Rc. No. 1/3429/2024, dated 30.11.2024, considering the petitioner’s explanation and also without providing personal hearing passing the suspension order as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice vioiative of Articies 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and and contrary to the Essential Commodities Act and also violative of .Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and to set aside the Public conseguently same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold the fair price shop No. 0814030 of Kommavaram Village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District, and to pass such other order or orders 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0814030 of Prakasam District. The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi, along with Village Revenue Officer, Kommavaram, has inspected the petitioner's fair price shop on 04.11.2024 and found excess stock of 502 kgs of fortified rice. 3 JS,J W.P.No.29109 of 2024 A show cause notice dated 14.11.2024 was issued based on the 3. report submitted by the 5*^ respondent. The petitioner received the said notice on 20.11.2024. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 25.11.2024. The 4*^ respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has issued proceedings vide Rc.No. 1/3429/2024, dated 30.11.2024, suspending the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though show cause 4. notice was issued on 14.11.2024, the same was served to the petitioner on 20.11.2024 and submitted her explanation on 25.11.2024 clearly stating that the petitioner has released the stock to the M.D.O. operator. who in turn distributed the stock to the card holders on 03.11.2024 and 04.11.2024. The 4*^ respondent, without considering the same, has suspended the authorization. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that though the impugned proceedings were served on 30.11.2024, the respondent authorities have not completed the enquiry till date and in similar circumstances, this Court in A.Neelima v. Joint Collector, Kurnool and others^ at para No. 13 has held thus; “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 1 1996 (1) APU 266 I 4 JS,J W.P.No.29109 of 2024 Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force the Control Orders, subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which the authorisation of a fair price shop dealer 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 period of suspension. During this period the 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 to can be the Appointing suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the authority or the Appellate authority authority. ” appointing the Revisionary or 5. Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned Single a writ appeal was preferred by the respondents therein, disposing of the Writ Appeal by its Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^, No.2 as under: Judge and while a Division Bench of this High Court observed at para 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment based which is of the Supreme Court Kumar v. State of In that case, the prescribed form of licence contained the clause for the period upon the decision M/s.Sukhwinder Pal Bipan „ Punjab (1) AIR 1982 (S.C.), 1965. in ^ 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 5 % JS,J W.P.No.29109 of 2024 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 i/\/as 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 ivas 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. ” 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that excess stock of 502 kgs of fortified rice was noticed in the petitioner’s fair price shop and a charge was framed. The petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy of appeal before the respondent, has straight away approached this Court and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6 JS,J W.P.No.29109 of 2024 7. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the show was served on 20.11.2024 and the petitioner submitted on 25.11.2024. However, the explanation of the petitioner, has passed the i cause notice her explanation respondent, without considering the impugned proceedings on petitioner’s shop, which is 30.11.2024 suspending the authorization of the nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the respondents have not completed enquiry within ninety (90) days, the respondents are liable to restore the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price Shop in terms of Joint Collector’s case. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 8. In the light of the observations of the Division supra, this Court is of the considered Bench as extracted opinion that as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 90 days, enquiry is not completed within the reasonable period" and accordingiy, this Court is holding that the 3'“ it has to be construed that the respondent failed to conclude the the suspension order passed against the_petitioner be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall enquiry within “reasonable period’’ and on 30.11.2024 shall be restored. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition i the 4^^ respondent to revoke the IS allowed directing suspension order dated 30.11.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner 7 JS,J W.P.No.29109 of 2024 and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTA^^^EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Tahasildar, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. 6. One CC to Smt. Marella Radha Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATE 0:07/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.29109 of 2024 A %[ Oil AUG 2025 Sectjap^^^ ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS