APHC010592312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30942/2025 Between: 1. MALLEPOGU PRATHYUSHA, D/O. M. CHENNARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC- FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, R/O. H.NO. 81-6-829, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, SHARIF NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 5. THE ASSISTANT SUPPLY OFFICER, KURNOOL URBAN, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc.DT(LR).426/2020, dated 31.10.2025, in suspending the authorization of petitioner fair price Shop No. 1382123 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool, Kurnool District by relying on the reports submitted by 4th and 5th respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and 2 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025 consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent and pass IA 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 respondents to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer to Shop No. 1382123 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool, Kurnool District by suspending the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.DT(LR).426/2020, dated 31.10.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- <…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 3rd respondent vide Rc. DT(LR).426/2020, dated 31.10.2025, in suspending the authorization of petitioner fair price Shop No.1382123 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District by relying on the reports submitted by 4th and 5th respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant disregard to law and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rdrespondent…= 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1382123 of Kurnool Urban, Kurnool District vide proceedings dated 29.12.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent. Since the date of her appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any adverse remarks from anybody. b) While the things stood thus, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.DT(LR).426/2020, dated 08.07.2025, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization without issuing any notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20489 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2025, setting aside the cancellation order dated 08.07.2025 and remanding the matter to the original primary authority for conducting a fresh enquiry. Pursuant to the said order, a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2025 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice. For 4 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025 which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 27.10.2025. Thereafter, upon considering the petitioner’s explanation, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry, vide proceedings dated 31.10.2025. Challenging the said suspension order, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension only basing on the complaint made by one Smt. Golla Sarala, without conducting any inspection over the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and without identifying any variations. 3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit in support of the impugned proceedings and stating that a complaint was received from one Smt. Golla Sarala alleging that the petitioner is not residing in Kurnool Town and that she is not a member of Self-Help Group in Kurnool Town. The said complaint was forwarded to the Assistant Supply Officer, Kurnool Urban and the Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal for conducting enquiry. After receipt of the report from the Assistant Supply Officer, Kurnool Urban, the 3rd respondent issued a show- cause notice dated 22.10.2025 to the petitioner calling for an explanation within seven (7) days from the date of issuance of the said notice. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that she is residing in Padmavathi Nagar at Shareef Nagar and that the allegations made in the complaint are false. However, considering the same, the petitioner’s authorization was placed under suspension pending enquiry. 5 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings as well as the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it appears that, basing on a complaint raised by one Smt.Golla Sarala, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioner after calling for a report on the said complaint, by issuing a show-cause notice and calling for an explanation duly framing two charges. For which, the petitioner submitted an explanation simply stating that the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely false, but she has not furnished any proof to establish that she is residing in Kurnool Town. On the other hand, the impugned proceedings are only suspension pending enquiry, which are admittedly passed on 31.10.2025. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned proceedings. 6. 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, 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, 1 2015 (3) ALD 102 6 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025 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. 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 7 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025 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 period of suspension may vary from case to case depending upon various factors.= 7. Though the impugned order was passed on 31.10.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period and there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner till date. In view of the above legal proposition, the respondent authorities shall expeditiously conclude the enquiry within 90 days from the date issuance of the impugned order as the order of suspension cannot be allowed to be continued for an indefinite period. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of 90 days from the date issuance of the impugned order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law failing which, the impugned order, dated 31.10.2025, gets automatically set aside without any further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2026 KGR 8 VS,J W.P.No.30942 of 2025