APHC010053982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3043/2025 Between: Syed Phagaloon ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 The Court made the following order:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in Rc.E./299/2025, dated 23.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent by suspending the authorization of the petitioner in respect of the F.P.Shop No.0804010, Kurechedu village, Kurechedu Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting an independent enquiry, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Rc.E./299/2025, dated 23.01.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 23.01.2025, suspending the dealership of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.0804010 in Kurechedu Village, Kurechedu Mandal, Prakasam District, without mentioning the period of suspension. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that already enquiry process is going on and it will be concluded within short time. Hence, requested this Court not to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 3 6. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it appears that the 2nd respondent has suspended the dealership of the petitioner without mentioning the period of suspension. The Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A.Neelima1, held that the maximum period of suspension of a dealer can be 90 days and that consequently, if the proceedings are not concluded by the Revenue Divisional Officer within 90 days, suspension has to be revoked or set aside. 7. Without delving into merits of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within a period of 90 days. Failing which, the respondents shall restore the dealership of the writ petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 07.02.2025 KBN 1 1995 LawSuit (AP) 1015 4 25 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3043 of 2025 Date: 07.02.2025 KBN