A suspension order without timely enquiry is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“..to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the order of the 4^th respondent dated 13.05.2025 vide Rc.(M).1206/2025 by suspended the authorization of F.P. Shop No.1381001 of Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural Justice and violation of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the above orders passed by the respondents 3 and 4 and direct the respondents to permit the Petitioner to run the F.P. Shop No.1381001 of the Yemmiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District by supplying essential commodities and pass such other order or orders…”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a. The petitioner was initially appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.1381001 at Yammiganur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2007. As the petitioner was suffering with paralysis, his wife who stood as nominee was continued as fair price shop dealer and the same was renewed from time to time. Since the date of appointment, they have been distributing the essential commodities to the cardholders without any complaint from any corner.

b. While so, on 03.05.2025, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Kurnool, inspected the shop of the petitioner and noticed variation in the stock, seized the stock and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

b. Basing on the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Kurnool, the 4^th respondent-the Sub Collector, Adoni, issued show-cause notice vide Rc.(M).1206/2025, dated 13.05.2025, to which the petitioner submitted explanation on 17.05.2025, in spite of which, the 4^th respondent passed the impugned order bearing Procs. Rc.(M).1206, dated 13.05.2025, suspending the authorization of the petitioner even without conducting any enquiry as required under the Act. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri K.Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the order of suspension has been in force for more than 90 days, till date, the enquiry has not been commenced and concluded.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has submitted that the respondents did not commit any error in passing the impugned suspension order and requested to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. As the enquiry was not completed within 90 days from the date of suspension, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector, Kurnool vs. A. Neelima, 1996 Law Suit (AP) 956, 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, AIR (1) 1982 SC 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