2025:APHC:2340 APHC010599992024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31334/2024 Between:

Shaik Haseena, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The 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 Ref B/933/2024, dated 27.06.2024, issued by the 2^nd respondent suspending authorization of petitioner’s fair price shop No.1182007, R/o. Ramnagar, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Control Orders and consequently set aside the same and to pass…”

02. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer of fair price shop No.1182007, R/o. Ramnagar, Proddatur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. While so, on 25.06.2024, the Vigilance & Enforcement officials and Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar along with his staff inspected the petitioner’s fair price shop and prepared a false report and submitted the same to the 2^nd respondent. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18.06.2024. The petitioner had submitted explanation on 25.06.2024 regarding the charges made in the show cause notice. But, without considering the same, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings vide Ref B/933/2024, dated 27.06.2024, by suspending the authorization of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition was filed.

03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities had conducted a raid during the period when the MDU operator had been distributing the commodities by receiving thumb marks apprehending that net connection may go off and therefore, the difference in the stock had been found, but, without considering the same reason, the impugned order was hastily passed. It was also submitted that the impugned order had been passed on 27.06.2024, whereas till now, no enquiry had been conducted. Therefore, on both grounds, he challenged the impugned order. He further stated that the explanation had been given by the petitioner about variation of stock which is a matter of enquiry and that the enquiry has not been concluded in spite of completing period more than 90 days while the order of suspension for unspecified period has been in force.

04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 2^nd respondent issued vide Ref.No.B/931/2024, dated 18.01.2025 which are replica of the impugned order.

05. It is pertinent to mention the decision of this High Court in Sandraboyina Guravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors¹ 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, Guntur², in support of his submission that if the enquiry is not concluded by the licensing authority within 90 days,

2015 (3) ALD 102

2005(1)ALD847

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, 1995 LawSuit(AP) 1015, 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 a