APHC010543932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28356/2024 Between: 1. VANJA SUBBARAO, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED 58 YEARS, F.P. SHOP DELAR, SHOP NO.0829050, DEVARAPALEM VILLAGE CHIMAKURTY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 3. THE COLLECTORCS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE-I, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 7. POTHURI TIRUPATHAIMA, W/O RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TREASURER NEHRU SHG, APPOINTED AS TEMPORARY FP SHOP DEALER OF DEVARAPALEM VILLAGE, CHIMAAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.23.12.2024 IN 2 VS,J W.P.NO.28356 OF 2024 I.A.NO. 02 OF 2024 . ...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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who suspended the authorisation of FP shop dealer through his proceedings, dated 30-8-2024 in Rc.No.1/1036/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgements of this Hon'ble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings of 4thRespondent-R.D.O., Ongole dt.30-8-2024 in Rc.No.1/1036/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, Shop No 0829050 of Devarampalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District and pass IA 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 pleased to stay the proceeding of orders of learned R.D.O., Ongole(4th respondent), dated 30-8-2024 in Rc.No.1/1036/2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead proposed 7th respondent as party in this W.P. No:28356/2024 and also in the pending Interlocutory Application as Respondent No.7 therein, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PANGULURU RACHANA 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following 3 VS,J W.P.NO.28356 OF 2024 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole, who suspended the authorization of FP shop dealer through his proceedings, dated 30-8-2024 in Rc.No.I/1036/2024, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the spirit of Judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and also mandatory provisions of Control Orders and also violate of principals of natural justice and without jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings of 4th Respondent-R.D.O., Ongole dt.30-8-2024 in Rc.No.I/1036/2024 and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as FP Shop dealer, Shop No. 0829050 of Devarampalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District and pass...” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0829050 of Devarampalem Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District on permanent basis in the year 1989. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. 3. While the matter being so, on 13.08.2024, the Enforcement DT, Ongole/the 6th respondent inspected the petitioner’s shop and initiated 6-A proceedings before the 3rd respondent, and sent a report to the RDO/4th respondent. Basing on the report of the 6th respondent, the RDO/4th respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.08.2024, calling for explanation from the petitioner within a period of seven (07) days. As the petitioner has failed to submit his explanation within a period of seven 4 VS,J W.P.NO.28356 OF 2024 (07) days, the 4th respondent herein passed the impugned proceedings dated 30.08.2024 suspending the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted his explanation on 04.09.2024, that is after passing the said impugned orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned counsel representing for the 7th respondent, who was impleaded subsequently. 6. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be seen that based on the report of the 6th respondent as well as show cause notice dated 17.08.2024, the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has failed to submit his explanation within a time frame given by the respondents i.e., within a period of seven (07) days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. As the petitioner has not submitted his explanation, the 4th respondent has proceeded further and suspended the petitioner’s authorization, pending enquiry on 30.08.2024. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 30.08.2024, the respondents have not completed the enquiry even as on today. 7. 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 5 VS,J W.P.NO.28356 OF 2024 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. 8. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 30.08.2024 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 VS,J W.P.NO.28356 OF 2024 that that the 4th respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 30.08.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 8. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 4th respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 30.08.2024 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 16.09.2025 LSP 7 VS,J W.P.NO.28356 OF 2024 247 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28356/2024 16.09.2025 LSP