IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE /■ PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 9138 OF 2025 Between: N Chandrakalavathi, W/o.N.Hussain Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ ;Fair Price Shop Dealer, Ration Shop No. 1338016, Allagadda Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 2. The Tahasildar, Allagada, Nandyal District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned proceedings in RC.No.CS/38/2025 dated 10-02-2025 suspending the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer on the ground that the samples food grains are not displayed in the shop without considering the’ explanation dated 24-01-2025 submitted by the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently set aside the impugned may proceedings in RC.No.CS/38/2025 dated 10-02-2025 issued by the 1st ^ further direction to continue the Petitioner as Fair Price respect of FP Shop.No.1338016, Allagada, Nandyal District ' m t^e inUrest of justice. lA 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 proceedings in RC.No.CS/38/2025 dated 10-02-2025 issued by the 1®* Respondent by directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of FP Shop.No. 1338016, Allagada, Nandyal Distrfct the pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010175302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] r j, WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 9138/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER N Chandrakalavathi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned proceedings in RC.No.CS/38/2025 dated 10-02- 2025 suspending the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer on the ground that the samples food grains are not displayed in the shop without considering the explanation dated 24-01-2025 submitted by the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently set aside the impugned proceedings in RC.No.CS/38/2025 dated 10-02-2025 issued by the 1^' Respondent with a further direction to continue the Petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer in respect of FP Shop.No.1338016, Allagada, Nandyal District in the interest of justice...” 2 JS,J W.P.No.9138/2025 2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer for shop No. 1338016 situated at Allagadda, Nandyal District and has been running the fair price shop since 30 years. On the report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, the 1 has issued a show cause notice dated 08.01.2025 which petitioner on 21.01.2025. respondent was served to the 3. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that the 1"‘ respondent, without communicating the show cause notice to the petitioner, issued the impugned proceedings dated 10.02.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after lapse of 90 days the respondents have not concluded the enquiry, and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be revoked. He 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^ wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held at para No. 13 as extracted hereunder; “13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being ^ which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into c, 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 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 one or ^ 1996 (l)APU 266 3 JS,J W,P No.9138/2025 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 Revisionary authority. ” Against the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the state 5. has preferred a writ appeal. Para No.2 of the Judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^, is extracted hereunder: “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. ” J 6 On perusal of the record, it is observed that though the show cause notice was issued on 08.01.2025, the same was served to the petitioner on J 21.01.2025 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 24.01.2025 St which is within the stipulated period of seven days. However, the 1 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 4 JS,J W.P.No.9138/2025 respondent, without giving opportunity dated 10.02.2025 which i justice. Therefore, the impugned has issued the iimpugned proceedings principles of natural proceedings are liable to be set aside. IS nothing but violation of the 7. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench this Court is of the considered opinion that as the the respondents in the present as extracted supra enquiry is not completed by case for more than 90 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the reasonable period” and respondent failed to conclude the passed against revoked and the authorization of accordingly, this Court is holding that the 1 enquiry within “reasonable period the petitioner on 10.02.2025 shall be petitioner shall be restored. and the suspension order the 8. For the reasons stated above respondent to revoke the against the petitioner and continue the petitioner costs. this Writ Petition is allowed directing the suspension order dated 10.02.2025 issued St 1 restore the authorization of the as fair price shop dealer. There shall petitioner and be no order as to As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER closed. ./i-roi ■ — //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 2 The Tahasildar, Allagada, Nandyal District. 3. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department Secretanat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. One 5. Two CCs to GP for 6. Three CD Copies TF r HIGH COURT \ DATED;09/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.9138 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS