IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM " WRIT PETITION NO: 31092 OF 2024 / Between: Medaboyina Ramesh, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged 32 years, Occ Fair Price Shop Dealer, R/o H.No.4-82, Mellavagu village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh; Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplied Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the inipugned order Rc.No.1597/2024-G dated 28-09-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide. 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 impugned order Rc.No.1597/2024-G dated 28-09- 2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palanadu District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010596732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] riXj 0&-rr:5 TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 31092/2024 Between: Medaboyina Ramesh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY 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: “...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order direction, declaring the impugned order Rc.No.1597/2024-G dated 28-09-2024 on the file of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, illegal, arbitrary and vitiated as the same is malafide and pass such orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” or as 2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0721005 situated at Mellavagu Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District. On 28.08.2024 the \ 2 W.P.No.31092/2024 revenue officials conducted inspection and found variation of 350 kgs of fortified rice. 3. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that the 2"^^^ respondent, without communicating the show cause notice to the petitioner, issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.09.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not concluded the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days, 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: 4. “13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the Appointing authority pending enquiry into 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 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 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. ” or any 1996 (1) APU 266 3 JS,J WP.No.31092/2024 Against the said Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the respondents therein, and while disposing of 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 5. 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. ” 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the panchanama shows huge variation of fortified rice, and without availing the alternative remedy of appeal to the Joint Collector, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court. 7. On perusal of the record, it is observed that though a reference was made in proceedings dated 28.09.2024 with reference to show cause notice ^ 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 4 JS,J W,P.No.31092/2024 dated 06.09.2024, the same was not served to the petitioner. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation on 27.09.2024. However, the respondents have issued cyclostyled proceedings, suspending the authorization of the petitioner’s fair price shop which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the impugned proceedings are issued on 28.09.2024, and the respondents have not completed enquiry within 90 days, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. 8. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench as extracted supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the enquiry is not completed within 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 “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed against the petitioner on 28.09.2024 shall be nd 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 28.09.2024 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplied Department, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. T 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. 3. The Tahsildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. 4. One CC to Sri. D Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. TwoCCsto GP For Civil Supplies .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. THREE CD Copies AL ■Mil HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.31092of2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS