APHC010003452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 442/2026 Between: 1. GURRAM VARA LAKSHMI, W/O. DEVATHI VARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC DEALER OF F.P. SHOP NO.0814018, R/O. KELLAMPALLI VILLAGE, MUNDLAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 522 236 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. - 523 230 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUNDLAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. - 523 265 ...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 or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in Rc.K/2241/2025, dt. 23-12-2025, issued by the 2nd respondent whereunder suspended the authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry with regard to the fair price shop No. 0814018, Kellampalli Village, VS,J W.P No.442 of 2026 2 Mundiamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, without 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the proceedings in Rc.K/2241/2025, dt. 23-12-2025, issued by the 2^^ respondent whereunder suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry with regard to the fair price shop No. 0814018, Kellampalli Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J W.P No.442 of 2026 3 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- <….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.K/2241/2025, dt.23-12-2025, issued by the 2ndrespondent whereunder suspended the authorization of the petitioner, pending enquiry with regard to the fair price shop No.0814018, Kellampalli Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, without 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. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0814018, Kellampalli Village, Mundlamuru Mandal, Prakasam District, 30 years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner’s authorization has been renewed from time to time and is valid up to 2026. b) While the things stood thus, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi submitted a report to the 2nd respondent alleging that, on receipt of credible information that the petitioner is not distributing essential commodities properly and that there were variations in the stock balance, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Mundlamuru along with the Food Inspector, Podili proceeded to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 05.12.2025 at around 6.30 VS,J W.P No.442 of 2026 4 p.m. and secured the panchanamdars and inspected the shop and have found variations of (+) 615 kgs of PDS rice and (+) 28 packets of sugar. In pursuance of the said report, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice on 11.12.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner duly framing a single charge. For which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 15.12.2025. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent without even considering the explanation submitted by her, placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension, pending enquiry vide impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2025, for an indefinite period. Challenging the said suspension order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 23.12.2025, it can be observed that, basing on a report submitted by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Darsi dated 07.12.2025, a show-cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent on 11.12.2025 calling for an explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.12.2025. Despite receipt of the explanation, the 2nd respondent passed impugned order placing the petitioner’s authorization under suspension, pending enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the order of suspension is for an indefinite period, as the VS,J W.P No.442 of 2026 5 2nd respondent has failed to specify the duration of the suspension of the petitioner’s authorization. 5. Under similar circumstances, this Court has specified that a suspension pending enquiry can be ordered only for a reasonable period and shall not exceed 90 days, to enable the authorities to complete the enquiry, as observed by the 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 more often than not, a period of 90 days should ordinarily be sufficient to conclude the enquiry. 6. In the present case, the impugned suspension order was passed on 23.12.2025 and in view of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment as well as in the considered opinion of this Court, it is deemed appropriate to 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 VS,J W.P No.442 of 2026 6 direct the respondents to complete the enquiry within a reasonable period i.e., 90 days from the date of the suspension order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.01.2026 KGR