1 APHC010269942025 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: 13769/2025 Between: 1. SRI B. SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O VENKATESWARLU, OCC FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0754046, R/O D. NO. 2-103, BALAGANIVARIPALEM, KOLIPALERRR VILLAGE, NIZAMPATNAM MANDAL, GUNTUR 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, BAPATLA DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, NIZAMPATNAM MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No. 0754046, located in R/o Balaganivaripalem, Kolipalem Village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District, without there being any suspension nor cancellation of authorization, is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No. 2 0754046, located at R/o Balaganivaripalem, Kolipalem Village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District, 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 pleased to direct the 2nd & 3rd respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No. 0754046, located at R/o Balaganivaripalem, Kolipalem Village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District by enabling him to supply essential commodities to the card holders, pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition 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 and 3rd respondents in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No. 0754046, located in R/o Balaganivaripalem, Kolipalem Village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District, without there being any suspension nor cancellation of authorization, is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner fair price shop No. 0754046, located at R/o Balaganivaripalem, Kolipalem Village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0754046 located in Balaganivaripalem, Kolipalem village, Nizampatnam mandal, Guntur district and has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint from whomsoever concerned. 3. While the matter stood thus, the respondent officials have inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop on 04.11.2024 and as they found certain variations in the stock position i.e., shortage of 10.02 kilograms of PDS rice and excess stock of dal and sugar to an extent of 21 and 66 kilograms respectively, the entire stock was seized by way of a panchanama. Accordingly, a report was submitted to the 2nd respondent basing on which, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice seeking his explanation, pursuant to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 12.11.2024 denying the allegations leveled against him. The grievance of the petitioner is that without concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the respondent authorities have stopped supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4 4. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced a copy of the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent herein as per which, it can be seen that subsequent to the petitioner submitting his explanation, his authorization of the fair price shop No.0754046 of Kalliphalem village, Nizampatnam mandal was suspended, pending enquiry. 6. Admittedly, pending the present petition, the petitioner’s authorization of the fair price shop No.0754046 of Kalliphalem village, Nizampatnam mandal was suspended, pending enquiry vide order dated 26.11.2024 before the 2nd respondent. 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 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 5 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, with the above direction, 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