Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
S Gangadri vs The State Of Ap on 24 March, 2025
APHC010447982024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3459]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 22983/2024
Between:
S Gangadri ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the
4threspondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.D/336/2024, dated
20.09.2024 suspending the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop No.1246029,
Eddulavaripalli, H/o Kondakamarla Village of O.D.Cheruvu Mandal,
Sri Sathya Sai District as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind,
unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to
supply the Essential Commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop
2No.1246029, Eddulavaripalli, H/o. Kondakamarla Village of
O.D.Cheruvu Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
permanent fair price shop dealer in the year 1986. Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated in the year 2015 framing charges against
the petitioner and the Revenue Divisional Officer/respondent No.4
vide proceedings in Rc.No.D.Dis.No.B/3277/1015, dated
18.04.2016, imposed fine of Rs.3000/- for minor discrepancies.
Aggrieved by the orders, an appeal was preferred before the
respondent No.3. The said order was confirmed by the respondent
No.3 on 18.04.2023. On 20.09.2024, the respondent No.4 has
issued show cause notice-cum-suspension order which was served
to the petitioner on 30.09.2024 by the respondent No.5 framing four
(04) charges, alleging that the petitioner has violated the Condition
No.12 (n), 12 (o), 12 (P) (1) and 12 (P)(3) of A.P.S.T.P.D.S. (Control)
Order, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per
Clause 8(4) of Control Order, 2018, the appointing authority has to
take action after conducting enquiry. In the instant case, the
respondent No.4 without following procedure under law has issued
proceedings suspending the authorization of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
respondents have not completed the enquiry even after lapse of
3
eight months. The competent authority vested with power as
disciplinary authority is bound to complete the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner/fair price shop dealer
alleging certain allegations within reasonable time. There should be
no unreasonable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.
5. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in A Neelima vs Joint
Collector, Kurnool 1 . A learned single Judge of this Court held at
Para No.13 as extracted hereinunder:
“13. Nevertheless, the power of suspension pending enquiry
being one which is exercisable by the appointing authority pending
enquiry into or in contemplation of the suspension or cancellation
of the authorization, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with
regard to the exercise of the said power as in the passage quoted
above would apply with equal force to the Control Orders, subject-
matter of consideration in these proceedings. Though no time limit
is prescribed during which the authorization of a fair price shop
dealer can be suspended in the Control orders, it must be held as
declared by the Supreme Court in the passage quoted above, that
the period of 90 days is reasonable safeguard for limiting the
period of suspension. During this period the Appointing authority is
expected to complete the enquiry and take a decision as to
cancellation or otherwise of the authorization. If for any reason the
enquiry is not completed within the said period of 90 days the
order of suspension is liable to be revoked and should be revoked
either by the appointing authority or the Appellate Authority or the
Revisionary Authority.
6. Against the said judgment rendered by the learned Single
Judge, an appeal was preferred by the respondents therein, and
while disposing the writ appeal by its judgment in Joint Collector,
11996 (1) APLJ 266
4
Kurnool vs. A. Neelima2 a Division Bench of this Court observed
at Para No.2 as extracted hereinunder:
“We have gone through the impugned judgment which is based
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Pal Bipan
Kumar v. State of Punjab3 (1) 65. In that case, the prescribed form
of license 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 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.”
7. Heard.
8. In the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of
this Court, as extracted supra, and in the considered opinion of this
Court, as the enquiry is not completed by the respondents in the
present case for more than 180 days, it has to be construed that
the enquiry is not completed within the “reasonable period” and
accordingly, this Court is holding that the 4th respondent failed to
conclude the enquiry within a “reasonable period” and the
21996 Law Suit (AP) 956
5
suspension order dated 20.09.2024 shall be revoked and the
authorization of the petitioner shall be restored.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is disposed
of directing the 4th respondent to revoke the suspension order,
dated 20.09.2024, issued against the petitioner and restore the
authorization of the petitioner and continue the petitioner as fair
price shop dealer. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Date: 24.03.2025
SCS
6
155
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 22983/2024
Date:24.03.2025
SCS