1 APHC010513682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 27212/2025 Between: 1. GUNTHA THYAGARAJU, S/O.SHETURU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. FAIR SHOP DEALER, F.P. SHOP NO. 1340018, R/O.D.NO. 1- 34, SARVAIPALLI VILLAGE, UYYALAWADA MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, , UYYALAWADA MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS/741/2024 dated 21.12.2024 without conducting any enquiry within 90 days after suspension of authorization of the petitioner as per clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 2 and 21 of constitution of India consequently set aside the same and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS/741/2024 dated 21.12.2024 by continuing the petitioner as a F.P shop dealer in Shop No. 1340018, situated at Sarvaipalli Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Kurnool District.,by enabling him to supply to the card holders pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.CS/741/2024 dated 21.12.2024 without conducting any enquiry within 90 days after suspension of authorization of the petitioner as per clause 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India consequently set aside the same and pass such….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer of shop No.1340018 situated at Sarvaipalli village, Uyyalawadamandal, Kurnool district in the year 2007 and ever since, he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders, without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 08.10.2024, the 3rd respondent inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and as certain variations were found in the ground stock, a case under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated and on 30.10.2024, basing on a report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation. Thereafter, on 21.12.2024, the 2nd respondent has suspended the petitioner’s authorization pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4 4. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s fair price shop was inspected by the 3rd respondent on 08.10.2024 and as certain discrepancies were found in the ground stock, basing on the report submitted by the 3rdrespondent dated 08.10.2024, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the 2nd respondent on 30.10.2024 seeking his explanation as to why his authorization should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and subsequently, vide the impugned proceedings, the petitioner’s authorization was suspended, pending enquiry. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that till date, the enquiry against the petitioner has not been commenced, which is against the principle of law laid down in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1 , wherein it was 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 5 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. 7. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the respondent authorities have made alternative arrangements to distribute essential commodities to the cardholders assigned to the petitioner’s fair price shop, instead of going into merits, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry pending against the petitioner herein as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :14.10.2025. Gss