IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (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: 4842 OF 2()9R AMARAVATI Between: T. Yellaiah, S/o. T. Kashanna, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Fair Shop Dealer, F.P. Shop No. 1334044, R/o.46, Ayyaluru Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool Now Nandyal District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division Nandyal District. 3. The Tahsildar, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool Now Nandyal District. Buildings Kurnool Now ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated of India praying that in m the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus any other appropriate Writ respondent no.2 in issuing the the petitioner vide 09.2024 without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of constitution of India or Order or direction declaring the action of the suspension order by suspending the authorization of proceedings in Rc. No.CS/659/2024 dated 26. consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances $tated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 2 nd / respondent vide .pproceedings in Rc. No.CS/659/2024 dated 26.09.2024 by continuing the petitioner as a F.P shop dealer in Shop No. 1334044, situated Ayyaluru Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool now Nandyal District. By enabling him to supply to the card holders pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010093532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 4842/2025 Between: T Yellaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1..GPFOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 2 BSBJ W.P.No.4842 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is 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 respondent No.2 in issuing the suspension order by suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide proceedings in Rc.No. CS/659/2024 dated 26.09.2024 without conducting any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer, vide shop No. 1334044 situated at Ayyaluru village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool now Nandyal District. From the date of appointment, the petitioner is discharging the duties without any remarks. While so, on 19.09.2024, the fair price was inspected and certain variations were found in the stock. a. b. The following charge was framed against the petitioner: “That the inspection team noticed the variation of fortified rice (-) 700 kgs, Jowar (-) 572 kgs and (-) 11 packets (each weighing 500 gms) of sugar are less in transactions while BSBJ W.P.No.4842 of 2025 compared to closing balance and it is more than 1.5% which is not allowable and therefore the stocks found less in the ground balance is clearly established the fact that the dealer has indulged in the malpractice in the distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders under public distribution system and violated clause 29(a) under APTPDS (Control) Order, 2018.” 4. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge as follows: The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar inspected the shop on 19.09.2024 at about 4 PM and booked case with an ulterior motive at the influence of local leaders. He did not conduct panchanama. No mediators attended at the time of inspection of the shop. When the petitioner requested to calculate the physical stock of 6 quintals of rice and 5.72 quintals of jowar available in the sofa of the fair price shop, the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar did not heed the request. He just obtained the signature of the petitioner and went away. After receipt of the show-cause notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, the petitioner approached the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal, to furnish copy of the panchanama, however, the petitioner was not provided with the copy. The allegations made against the petitioner are not correct. Therefore, violation of clause 29(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 does not arise. The inspecting officials failed to record the opening balance in accordance with the petitioner’s assertions. Though the authorization of the petitioner was suspended on 26.09.2024, as of now, no enquiry has been conducted. Hence, this writ petition. 4 % BSBJ W.P.No.4842 of 2025 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though 90 days period had elapsed from the date of passing the impugned order, enquiry was neither commenced nor concluded. He further submitted that the petitioner offered valid explanation for the variation in the stock, yet, the impugned order was passed. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies represented that he had no written instructions. 7. The High Court of Judicature (for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh) at Hyderabad in Sandraboylna Guravaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.\ wherein it was 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 '2015(3) ALD 102 5 BSB,J W.P.No.4842 of 2025 ♦ Officer within 90 days, suspension has to be revoked or set aside. 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 enguirv". 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 6 BSBJ C.R.P.No.4842 of 2025 ^^4 could be laid down that in every case, the maximum period of suspension could be only 90 days and that what is reasonable period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors. 8. Further, in C. Durga Srinivas Rao and Ors. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.^, it was held at para No.26 as follows: “26. From a conjoined reading of the provisions of the Control Order, more particularly clause 5 and 24 read with the decisions of this Court, the following conclusions can be drawn. "(i) The appointing authority can suspend the authorisation under clause 5(5) of the Control Order, if grave charges exist and the case warrants suspension, but should not be exercised in a routine manner without applying mind; (ii) The power of suspension under clause 5(5) of the Control Order includes the power to suspend the authorisation pending enquiry and no show cause notice is necessary before exercising such power; (iii) The order of suspension should be followed by a show cause notice immediately by specifying the charges in clear terms and giving sufficient time to the dealer to submit his/her explanation; (iv) The charges so levelled may contain two parts viz., one, containing serious charges, which may attract the cancellation of authorisation and another containing marginal ^2015(6) ALD 359 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.4842of 2025 variations and minor irregularities at fair price shops as indicated in clause 24 of the Control Order, (v) While issuing the show cause notice, the appointing authority shall enclose a copy of the report of any subordinate officer or a copy of the complaints received, which prompted him to take action; (vi) After receiving the explanation from the dealer, in case of denial by him, the appointing authority shall hold an enquiry and prove the charges levelled against the dealer. Such enquiry should be fair by placing the material before the dealer but cannot be elevated to the level of a regular court trial. The burden lies on the appointing authority to prove charges. The responsibility to hold enquiry shall not be delegated; (vii) The enquiry shall be completed as soon as possible but not later than ninety days from the date of suspension. After completion of enquiry, the appointing authority shall record reasons in respect of each charge and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Control Order, (viii) The order so passed should be communicated to the dealer immediately and shall not be implemented till the expiry of 30 days, the period for preferring appeal, (ix) It has to be noted that in all cases of proven charges, it is not necessary for the appointing authority to cancel the authorization and in appropriate cases, he/she can pass suitable orders imposing penalty or let off with a warning." 9. In the light of the above decision, the Writ Petition is disposed of dffe^ng the authorities to complete the enquiry as per law within one 8 BSBJ C.R.P.No.4842 of 2025 (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the impugned order stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall ^and closed. Sd/- M SRiNIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal Division, Kurnool Now Nandyal District. 3. The Tahsildar, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool Now Nandyal District. 4. One CC to Sri K. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ' ssb HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER ? 0 7 MAR 2025 ^ , Current Section ^ WP.No.4842 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS