APHC010050812023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2541/2023 Between: 1. LANKIPALLE CHAYADEVI, W/O T E MAHESWAR, FP SHOP NO 1081035, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 16-172 PAIRAMANNA STREET, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUBCOLLECTOR, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization Vide RoC.A3/2638/2022, dated 12.01.2023 of the petitioner Shop No. 1081035 of Madhanapalli, Annamayya District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to Suspend the orders passed by the respondent No 2 Vide RoC.A3/2638/2022, dated 12.01.2023 of the petitioner Shop No. 1081035 of Madhanapalli, Annamayya District by permitted the petitioner to supply stock to card holders and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 to vacate the interim order dated 06.02.2023 passed in W.P.No. 2541 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.2541 of 2023 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- <….to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization Vide RoC.A3/2638/2022, dated 12.01.2023 of the petitioner Shop No. 1081035 of Madhanapalli, Annamayya District is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same and pass…= 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for F.P. Shop No.1081035 of Madanapalle Village and Mandal, Annamayya District, in the year 2003. The petitioner has been supplying the essential commodities to the cardholders without any remarks whatsoever. 3. While things stood thus, on 27.11.2022, the inspecting officials inspected the shop and found some irregularities in distributing essential commodities to the cardholders. Accordingly, a panchanama was conducted on 27.11.2022 by the inspecting officials and they also recommended a 6-A case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the Joint Collector, Madanapalle. Thereafter, based on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued a show- cause notice duly framing three charges against the petitioner, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation denying all the charges and also requested to drop the charges framed against the petitioner, permitting her to continue as a fair price shop dealer. But however, 4 based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner, as the charges were proved and the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry vide RoC.A3/2638/2022, dated 12.01.2023. Thereafter, the Tahsildar was also directed to make alternative arrangements for the convenience of the cardholders. 4. Challenging which, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition on the ground that though the variations are minor and within the permissible limit of the control order, the respondents, without there being any reason, issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner duly framing three charges against the petitioner calling for an explanation, for which though the petitioner submitted an explanation, without considering the said explanation, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings placing the petitioner under suspension. 5. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 06.02.2023, this Court passed an interim order suspending the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 of the 2nd respondent, pending further orders. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader. 7. The respondent No.2 has filed the counter-affidavit duly enclosing the documents in support of his case and reiterated the facts as stated by the petitioner and further stated that during the course of inspection it was noticed that a benami was taking biometric authentication of the cardholders and issuing the essential commodities belonging to F.P.S. Shop No.1081035. Hence, immediately CSDT seized the stocked essential commodities under Section 6-A 5 of the Act for violation of the rules of the APTPDS (Control) Order, 2018. It is further stated that though the petitioner submitted an explanation and also attended the enquiry on 07.01.2023 at 10.00 a.m., the same was not satisfactory, as such the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension. 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. 9. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 12.01.2023 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 period and even after an elapse of 90 days, there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the Respondents in the present case within the <reasonable period= i.e. 90 days, this Court affirms that that the 2nd respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within <reasonable period= and the suspension order dated 12.01.2023 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 10. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 12.01.2023 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :10.12.2025 MH/JLSR 7 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 54 WRIT PETITION No.2541 of 2023 Date :10.12.2025 MH/JLSR 8