APHC010675622025 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: 34917/2025 Between: 1. KOSURI VENKATESH, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGE 31 YEARS R/O JAYANTHI RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASAROPET 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASAROPET 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASAROPET REVENUE DIVISION AT NARASAROPET PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL BOLLAPALLI PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. SMT ANNAVARAPU RASI W/O ASHOK, AGE NOT KNOWN, ORGANIZER OF PRATIBHA DWAKRA GROUP JAYANTHI RAMAPURAM, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.24.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025. ...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 action of the 4threspondent in 2 VS,J W.P.No.34917 of 2025 issuing the proceedings Rc. No. 2534/2025-G dated 02.12.2025suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair price shop dealer of Fair Shop No. 0721007 Jayanthi Ramapuram Village,Bollapalli Mandal,Palnadu District without there being any valid reason without considering the petitioners explanation and without providing a personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Essential Commodities Act and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold Shop No. 0721007 of Jayanthi Ramapuram Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu district and to 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 F.P. shop Dealer and to supply essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Shop No. 0721007 of Jayanthi Ramapuram Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu district by suspending the proceedings of the 4threspondent in Rc.No.2534/2025-G dated 02.12.2025pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to implead the proposed respondent as Respondent No. 6 in WP. No 34917 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD This Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.34917 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 action of the 4threspondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.2534/2025-G dated 02.12.2025suspending the authorization of the petitioner as Fair price shop dealer of Fair Shop No.0721007 Jayanthi Ramapuram Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, without there being any valid reason without considering the petitioner’s explanation and without providing a personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Essential Commodities Act and also violative of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner to hold Shop No.0721007 of Jayanthi Ramapuram Village, Bollapalli Mandal, PalnaduDistrict…” 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was appointed as a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.0721007 of Jayanthi Ramapuram Village, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District vide proceedings dated 20.02.2013. The petitioner’s authorization has been renewed from time to time and he has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaints from any quarter. b) While so, due to a change in the political scenario in the State, at the instance of the certain political leaders, the respondent authorities allegedly insisted the petitioner to submit his resignation. As the petitioner refused for the same, the CSDT, Rompicherla Mandal has conducted an inspection over 4 VS,J W.P.No.34917 of 2025 the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on 12.11.2025. During the said inspection, though the CSDT found a variation of 7.50 kgs of rice, it is alleged that, for the political reasons, the same was recorded as 750 kgs and a panchanama was prepared without considering the petitioner’s explanation. Thereafter, basing on a report submitted by the CSDT, the 4th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2025, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, duly framing a single charge as against the petitioner. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.12.2025 duly stating that on 12.11.2025 the CSDT, Rompicherla Mandal along with other officers inspected the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop and found a variation of rice of 7.50 kgs in excess. Despite this, without considering the petitioner’s explanation as well as the connected records, the 4th respondent placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry vide proceedings dated 02.12.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has informed this Court that one Smt.Annavarapu Rasi, who was the organizer of PrathibaDwakra Group, Jayanthi Ramapuram,Bollapalli Mandal was appointed as the temporary dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2025, seeking impleadment of the said temporary dealer as the 6th respondent. The said I.A. was allowed by this Court. Accordingly, the 6th respondent was impleaded, a notice was issued on the 6th respondent, which was also served 5 VS,J W.P.No.34917 of 2025 on her and thereafter, she entered appearance through her counsel before this Court also. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 5. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it can be observed that during the inspection conducted by the CSDT, Rompicherla Mandal, on 12.11.2025, a variation of only 7.50 kgs of rice was allegedly found, but the inspection report refers to 750 kgs of variation. The petitioner specifically contends that this discrepancy is politically motivated and that the panchanama was prepared without considering his explanation and the relevant records. It is also clear that a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2025 was issued framing a single charge, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.12.2025. However, without conducting a detailed enquiry and without considering the petitioner’s explanation, the 4th respondent placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry vide impugned order dated 02.12.2025. 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: 1 2015 (3) ALD 102 6 VS,J W.P.No.34917 of 2025 “3. At the time of 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. 7. Though the impugned order was passed on 02.12.2025 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 4th 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 02.12.2025, gets automatically set aside without any further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 VS,J W.P.No.34917 of 2025 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2026 KGR