IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ( PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5929 OF 2025 Between: Yenkala Chenamma, S/o. Yenkala Muni Reddy, Aged about 58 years. Permanent F.P Shop dealer of F.P Shop No. 1182082, Door No 26/311 ’ Bangaraiah Kotalu, Proddatur, Y.S.R District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Division Y S R District, The Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R District. The Village Revenue Officer, 32""^ Ward Secretariat, Proddatur Mandal Y.S.R District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref. No. B/1192/2025, dated 29.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and may contrary to the 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 set aside and drop all the : further proceedings in pursuance of the same. / < - i " lA 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 to direct the respondent No.3 to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings in Ref. No. B/1192/2024, dated 29.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: I APHC010111682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] .y TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5929/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER YenkalaChenamma AND ...RESPONDENT(S) 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 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed for 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.B/1192/2025, dated 29.07.2024, issued by the respondent No.3 as arbitrary and illegal, contrary to the objectives of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Orders, 2018 and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 21 and 300-k '^f the Constitution of India and 2 JS,J W.P.No.5929/2025 consequently set-aside and drop all the further proceedings in pursuance of the same and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the ” 2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent dealer at Fair Price Shop No.1182082, located at door No.26/311 in Nethaji Nagar, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. On 15.07.2024, Deputy Tahsildar inspected her shop and noted discrepancies in the stock. Consequently, the'3'"^ respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) issued a show cause notice on 25.07.2024, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted her response on 27.07.2024. Subsequently, on 29.07.2024, the O'"* respondent issued the impugned order, suspending the petitioner’s dealership of the petitioner’s fair price shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not completed the enquiry even after lapse of eight months. The competent authority vested with power as disciplinary authority is bound to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner/fair price shop dealer alleging certain allegations within reasonable time. There should be no unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. 3. 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in A Neelima vs Joint Collector, Kurnool^. A learned single Judge of this Court held at Para No. 13 as extracted hereinunder; 1996 (1)APLJ 266 \ ■ A 3 JS,J W.P.No,5929/2025 “13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry being one which is exercisable by the appointing authority pending enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation of the authorization, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject-matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit is prescribed during which the authorization of a fair price shop dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as declared by the Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to cancellation or othenwise of the authorization. If for any reason the enquiry is not completed within the said period of 90 days the order of suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked either by the appointing authority or the Appellate Authority or the Revisionary Authority. r Against the said judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred by the respondents therein, and while disposing the writ appeal by its judgment in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima^ a 5. Division Bench of this Court observed at Para No.2 as extracted hereinunder; “We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab"^ (1) 65. In that case, the prescribed form of license 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 ^1996 Law Suit (AP) 956 4 JS,J W.P.No.5929/2025 upon various factors, though more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry.” Heard. 6. 7. In the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court, as extracted supra, and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the present case for more than 225 days, it has to be construed that the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and accordingly, this Court is holding that the 3 respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within a “reasonable period” and the suspension order passed based on the report of the 4'^ respondent dated 29.07.2024 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. rd For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 3'"^ respondent to revoke the suspension order, dated 29.07.2024, issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Division Y.S.R District. w 4. The Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R District. The Village Revenue Officer, 32"^ Ward Secretariat, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R District. One CC to Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies 5. •j.. L 6. 7. 8. RAM «■ HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 £ 07 APR 2025 ^ ^ . Curreni beciion ^ y n» CO ORDER WP.No.5929 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COTS