APHC010694212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36046/2025 Between: 1. K RAMU, S/O.RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0847014, R/O. VAJJIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.- 523586 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522503 2. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-523001 3. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAPATNAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.-52328 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J W.P.NO.36046 OF 2025 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No. 1/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0847014, situated at Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, 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 pleased suspend the operation of the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No. 1/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025, by continuing the petitioner as a Fair price dealer for shop no. 0847014, situated at Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.36046 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 respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent in suspending the authorization of the petitioner vide Rc.No. 1/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 21 of Indian Constitution. Consequently, set aside the same by continuing the petitioner as Fair price dealer for shop No. 0847014, situated at Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District,...” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer for shop No.0847014 of Vajjireddypalem Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam Districton 12.03.2025. The petitioner’s authorization has been extended from time to time. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders without there being any complaint either from the cardholders or the concerned authorities. 3. While the things stood thus, a sudden inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s fair price shop on 12.12.2024 at around 2.00PM by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) along 4 VS,J W.P.NO.36046 OF 2025 with officials from the vigilance and Enforcement Department. During the said inspection, the inspecting officials allegedly found excess (+) 987 kgs of rice. In pursuant of the report submitted by the inspecting officials, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.12.2024, framing a single charge against the petitioner and calling for the explanation from the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.12.2025. 4. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, even without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, placed the petitioner’s authorization under suspension pending enquiry vide proceedings in Rc.No.I/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025. Thereafter, no enquiry has been conducted as required under the Control Order within a period of 90 days. Hence, the petitioner requested this Court to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on oral instructions, has stated that as on today, admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted by the 2nd respondent in pursuance 5 VS,J W.P.NO.36046 OF 2025 of the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.I/3695/2024 dated 06.02.2025. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, a Village Revenue Assistant has been distributing essential commodities to the cardholders to avoid inconvenience to them. 7. Considering the fact that no enquiry has been completed within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 06.02.2025, this is Court of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima1 , wherein a Division Bench 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 1 1996 LawSuit (AP) 956 6 VS,J W.P.NO.36046 OF 2025 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. 8. In the present case, though the impugned order was passed on 06.02.2025 suspending the authorization of the petitioner for an indefinite period and even after an elapse of 90 days, there has been no commencement of operation of the enquiry against the petitioner. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments and in the considered opinion of this Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the Respondents in the present case within the “reasonable period” i.e. 90 days, this Court affirms that that the 4th respondent failed to conclude the enquiry within “reasonable period” and the suspension order dated 06.02.2025 shall be revoked and the authorization of the petitioner shall be restored. 9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 7 VS,J W.P.NO.36046 OF 2025 06.02.2025 issued against the petitioner and restore the authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting enquiry in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 02.01.2026 LSP