IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 1 V.O PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29959 OF 2024 Between: P Venkamma, W/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ: F.P. Shop Dealer, Shop No. 0715062, R/o. Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapudi Secretariat Building, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli Revenue Division, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in R.C. No. 1459/2024/C, dt. 29-10-2024 of the 2nd respondent whereunder suspended the authorization of the Petitioners F.P. Shop No. 0715062, Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, without application of mind and contrary to the control orders is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders. 4 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 suspend the proceedings in R.C. No. 1459/2024/C, dt. 29-10-2024 of the 2nd respondent whereunder suspended the authorization of the Petitioners F.P. Shop No 0715062, Kommerapudi Village, 2 & 3 to pending disposal of Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, by directing the respondents supply the commodities to the petitioner for distribution the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010563472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SSE m [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29959/2024 Between: P Venkamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 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; ...RESPONDENT(S) ...to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in R.C. No. 1459/2024/C, dt. 29-10-2024 of the 2"'' respondent whereunder suspended the authorization of the Petitioners F.P. Shop No. 0715Q62, Kommerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, without application of mind and contrary to the control orders is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders and to pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the ...” 2 JS,J W.PNo.29959/2024 , 2. The petitioner i Palnadu District. Earlier, IS a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0715062 of when the respondents have stopped supplying essential commodities to the petitioner's shop, the petitioner has filed petition. During the a writ course of hearing, the learned Assistant Government copy of panchanama and order of authorization which is impugned in the present writ petition. Pleader has furnished the suspension of 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits not prepared panchanama at the time of i was issued without supplying the copy of panchanama. no variation of stock. Learned counsel further family is depending on the commission amount and the that the respondents have inspection. The order of suspension Furthermore, there is submits that the petitioner’s respondents have not completed the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days. The competent authority vested with power as disciplinary authority disciplinary proceedings initiated alleging certain allegations within is bound to complete the against the petitioner/fair price shop dealer reasonable time. There should be unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. no 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition i judgment of this Court in A Neelima vs Joint Collector, Kurnool^ single Judge of this Court held at Para No. 13 IS squarely covered by the . A learned as extracted hereinunder: “13^ Nevertheless the power of suspension pending enquiry being which IS exercisable by the appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension x.r cancellation of the authorizatTn Ihe one 1996 (1)APU 266 3 JS,J W,PNo.29959/2024 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 authorization of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by the Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or otherwise of the authorization. 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.” of 5. Against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred a writ appeal. Para No.2 of the judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^ \s extracted hereunder: “We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar y. State of Punjab^ (1) 65. In that case, the prescribed form of license 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 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 with the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of as agree 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, should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. a period of 90 days ^1996 Law Suit (AP) 956 4 JS,J . W.PNo.29959/2024 6. Heard. In the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court, as extracted supra, and in the considered opinion of this Court, 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 2 respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within a “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed based on the report of the 3’’'^ respondent dated 29.10.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be 7. nd restored. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing I the 2"^ respondent to revoke the suspension order, dated 29.10.2024, issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISjfRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Y To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Velagapu|di Secretariat Building, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattenapalli Revenue Division Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ,4^. One CC to Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies % HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.29959 of 2024 I 2 3 JUL 20?5 ^ Current Section ^ spatcv^?:? toll DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS