IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ■ (Special Original Jurisdiction) :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRII TWO THOUSAND AND twenty FIVE PRESENT the honourable smt justice sumathi WRIT PETITION NO- 10057 OF JAGADAM Between: Thura.apa„e Village Pe°/acPr^P^alli^^ndfrP^ak^s^a.S' ' 45 R/o. ■..Petitioner AND '■ Cons^umt A^^Tand^TvrSuo^^^^^^^ Secretary, Velagapudi, Amaravati Giimur DistriS^'" Buildings, 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kanigiri Division, Prakasam District. , Prakasam District. 3. The Tahsildar, Pedacharlo Palli Mandal ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus Order or direction declaring the of authorization of the Constitution of India praying that in the High Court may or any other appropriate Writ action of the 2""^ respondent in suspending 27 12 2024 i I, , ih Rc- E/688/2024 dated ■ 12.2024, IS Illegal, arbitrary and violation constitution of India. of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 161 ppr* ■ ctof praying that in the circumstances pleas Tt ^ support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 2 E/688/2024 dated 27.12.2024 may be respondent vide Rc. as a F.P shop nd by continuing the petitioner dealer in Shop No.0840027, situated Thurakapalle Village, Pedacharlo Palli Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: APHC010192262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10057/2025 Between: Kanchani Adhilakshmi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction declaring the action of the 2"^ respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.E/688/2024, dated 27.12.2024, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader, have consented for disposal of the writ petition. 2 A 3. On perusal of record, it is observed that though the authorization was suspended on 30.11.2024, the respondents have not concluded the enquiry even after lapse of 90 days, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be revoked in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^ Para No.2 of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court is extracted hereunder: 2. We have gone through the impugned judgment which ic 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 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 agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of suspension cannot be used 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 IS was as as a 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. ” 4. In the light of the observations of the Division Bench extracted supra, this Court is of the 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 as ^ 1996 Lawsuit (AP) 956 § 3 completed within the “reasonable period holding that the 5'^ respondent failed “reasonable period” and the petitioner on 30.11.2024 shall be petitioner shall be restored. and accordingly, this Court to conclude the enquiry within suspension order passed against the IS revoked and the authorization of the 5. For the reasons stated above directing the 5^^ respondent to 30.11.2024 issued of the petitioner and continue the There shall be no order as to costs. this Writ Petition is disposed of revoke the suspension order dated against the petitioner and restore the authorization petitioner as fair price shop dealer. As a sequel, miscellaneous stand closed. applications pending, if any, shall Sd/- J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT! OFFICER To Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanigiri Division, Prakasam District. 3. The Tahsildar, Pedacharlo Palli Mandal, Prakasam District. CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] Civil Supplies. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 1. 4. One 5. Two CCS to GP for 6. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:22/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10057 of 2025 = II3 OCT 2025 ml! JJ J Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS