APHC010031852020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1903/2020 Between: 1. N.SHIVANANDHA, S/O JANGA REDDY AGE-30 YEARS, OCC- F.P. SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.1026018, PATHAKALAVA VILLAGE TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, (CS) CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 5. PADMAVATHI SELF HELP GROUP, REP.BY ITS MEMBER SMT.N.VIJAYA W/O N.VEERASWAMY REDDY R/O PATHAKALVA VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL CHITTOOR DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 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 topleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of Shop No.1026018, Pathakalava Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor Dist., without there being any order of suspension or cancellation by issuing show cause notice vide Roc.C1/961/2019 dt-6-1-2020 without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Judgment passed by the Full Bench in 2002 (1) ALD 577 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the show cause notice dt-6-1-2020 and direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased Direct the respondents 2 to 4 to release Essential Commodities to the petitioner's shop i.e., Shop No.1026018, Pathakalava Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor Dist., as usual, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice vide Roc,C1/961/2019 dt-6-1-2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 3 OF 2020 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 permit the petiitoner to amend the prayer portion i.e"order issued by the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis. (C1) 961/2019 dt: 20.01.2020 suspending the authorization of the petiitoner and" in the place of "action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not releasing the essential commodities to the petiitoner in respect of shop No. 1026018, Pathakalava Village, 3 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor Dist; without there being any order of suspension or cancellation by" and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 4 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of Shop No 1026018 Pathakalava Village Tirupathi Rural Mandal Chittoor Dist without there being any order of suspension or cancellation by issuing show cause notice vide Roc C1/961/2019 dt612020 without following due procedure under The Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System Control Order 2018 is illegal arbitrary contrary to the Judgment passed by the Full Bench in 2002 1 ALD 577 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the show cause notice dt612020 and direct the respondents to release Essential Commodities in favour of the petitioner as usual and pass any other order….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as permanent fair price shop dealer in the year 2007 for shop No.1026018, Pathakalava Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and his authorization was valid up to 31.03.2021. The case of the petitioner is that he was supplying essential commodities to the card holders without there being any complaint either from the card holders or from the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 06.01.2020 which was served on the petitioner on 27.01.2020 alleging that the petitioner was not distributing essential commodities to the cardholders and as well as not maintaining the 5 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 timings. The said show cause notice was in fact issued based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent on 28.12.2019. 4. The case of the petitioner is also that through the show cause notice itself, the 2nd respondent has appointed the 5th respondent as a temporary dealer without there being any order of suspension or cancellation. Thereafter, as the respondents have stopped the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 5. Today, when the matter was came up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 20.01.2020 and because of which, the respondents have not been supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2020, requesting this Court to permit him to amend their prayer portion, i.e., to substitute “order issued by the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.(C1)961/2019, dated 20.01.2020, suspending the authorization of the petitioner” in the place of “action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not releasing the Essential Commodities to the petitioner in respect of Shop No.1026018”. The said amendment was allowed by this Court on 27.02.2020 and thereafter this Court was also pleased to pass the interim order on 04.09.2020 as under:- “…It is the case of the petitioner that his authorization was suspended by proceedings dated 20.01.2020 on certain 6 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 allegations. Initially the learned Government Pleader sought time to file counter-affidavit and accordingly counter affidavit has been filed. This Court sought production of records by its order dated 03.03.2020. This Court asked the Government Pleader to verify the record and to clarify some issues. Today, the learned Government Pleader participated in the Court proceedings through video conferencing along with record and answered the queries of the Court. It appears from the report of the Tahsildar which is the basis for initiating proceedings against the petitioner was sent to accommodate the 5th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer in the place of the petitioner. Normally, after suspension/cancellation of the authorization of the existing Fair Price Shop dealer only the recommendations for alternative arrangements will be made. It is also appears that the competent authority without applying his mind independently simply basing on the report of the Tahsildar passed the impugned order. This matter required detailed consideration by the respondents. In view of the above, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 6. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter reiterating the facts as already narrated by the petitioner in his affidavit. However, has stated that basing on the irregularities committed by the petitioner which were reported by the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice on 20.01.2020 suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. Except stating so, nowhere it is mentioned as to whether they have completed the enquiry till date or not. 7. As per the said facts, it is clear that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 20.01.2020 and on the same day the respondents have also made an alternative arrangement by appointing unofficial respondents to the petitioner’s fair price shop. However, in pursuance of 7 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 the interim orders passed by this Court on 04.09.2020 the petitioner has been continuing as dealer of the said fair price shop. 8. As the enquiry was not completed within 90 days from the date of suspension, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1 , wherein a Division Bench held as follows: 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. 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 8 VS,J W.P.No.1903 of 2020 9. In view of the fact that no enquiry has been completed till date, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh explanation to the said show cause notice dated 20.01.2020 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and thereafter, the respondents shall complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months. It is needless to say that the respondents shall supply the essential commodities to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 30.08.2025 JLV