APHC010078342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Palagiri Nagalakshmi The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4003/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES following: [3311] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P.No.4003 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref.No.C/482/2024, dated 05.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently restore the authorization by setting aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.1147013 situated in Sambepalli village, Sambepalli mandal, Rayachoti division and since then, she has been running the fair price shop. Her authorization has been extended from time to time and the same is in subsistence as on date. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.4003 of 2025 b. While so, respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti, basing on the report of respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Sambepalli Mandal, issued the impugned proceedings stating that prima facie the dealer had committed grave irregularities in maintenance of the fair price shop and violated the amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and as such, the authorization of the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. c. The impugned proceedings were issued basing on the report of the respondent No.4 without conducting enquiry as contemplated under rule 8(4) of the Control Order, 2018, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. The impugned order of suspension was issued as long back in the month of July, 2024 and till date, enquiry is not completed. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner duly explained the variation, the Collector (CS), Annamayya District, vide proceedings CS (2)/43/2024, dated 21.10.2024, observed that the dealer maintained true and correct volume of the Ragi powder (PDS) stock and there was no variation of stock, and thereby, the dealer had not violated clause 12(p)(3) of the Control Order, 2018, but, in respect of possession of excess stock of 5 kgs of Ragi powder and excess stock of jaggery, observing that there was no substantial evidence, ordered confiscation of 5% of the value of the seized sugar (sic. jaggery) and return of the remaining value of the sugar (sic. jaggery) to the dealer. He further submitted that the Tahsildar addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide reference No.B/138/2024, dated 19.12.2024, referring the proceedings of the Joint Collector and requested for mapping of the shop of the petitioner for distribution of the commodities to the cardholders, yet, no effective 4 BSB, J W.P.No.4003 of 2025 action had been taken on the said proceedings of the Tahsildar by the RDO. He further submitted that the order of suspension beyond the period of 90 days is impermissible. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies represented that he had no written instructions. 6. Perused the record. 7. The High Court of Judicature (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) at Hyderabad in Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.1, held, at paras 3 to 6, as follows: “3. At the hearing, Sri A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D. Sambasiva Rao v. Joint Collector, Guntur [2005 (1) ALD 847], in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days, the suspension has to be revoked or set aside. I have carefully considered the said judgment. 4. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Judge has observed that in Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima [1996 (1) APLJ 285], a Division Bench of this Court has 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. 1 2015 (3) ALD 102 5 BSB, J W.P.No.4003 of 2025 5. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in Joint Collector (supra). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the order of suspension based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab [AIR 1982 SC 65] by holding that as per the ratio laid down in the said judgment, if the enquiry is not completed within 90 days, the suspension shall stand automatically revoked. The Division Bench analysed the facts in M/s. Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (supra) and observed that in that case, the licence itself contained a clause that the suspension can be made for a maximum period of 90 days. The Division Bench has accordingly clarified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order passed by him did not lay down the general proposition of law that the maximum period of suspension can only be for a period of 90 days. In that context, the Division Bench has made the following observation -"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". 6. On a careful analysis of the judgments in M/s. Sukwinder Pal Bipal Kumar (supra) and Joint Collector (supra), I respectfully disagree with the view of the learned Judge in D. Sambasiva Rao (supra). As noted hereinbefore, the Division Bench itself has clarified that no general proposition could be laid down that in every case, the maximum period of suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable 6 BSB, J W.P.No.4003 of 2025 period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.” 8. In view of the above decision and the action proposed by the Tahsildar, it is a case fit to allow the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Ref.No.C/482/2024, dated 05.07.2024, issued by the respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 24-02-2025 RAR