Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Lambada Mohana Rao vs A Neelima on 19 January, 2026
APHC010691622025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 36182/2025
Between:
1. LAMBADA MOHANA RAO, S/O LATE JOGINAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, OCC- F.P.SHOP DEALER, F.P.SHOP NO.0132033,
RESIDENT OF TARLAKOTA VILLAGE TARLAKOTA POST, PALASA
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
(CS-I) DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522237.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT-532001.
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT -
532001.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALASA, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT - 532221.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT -
532221.
6. SMT PAILA VENAMMA, W/O SOMESWARA RAO, INCHARGE FAIR
PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.0132033 TREASURER OF SRI
RAMA SELF HELP GROUP, TARLAKOTA VILLAGE, PALASA
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532221
2
...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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or direction declaring the order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, the 4th Respondent herein, in
Rc.No.137/2025/DT(LR) dt.03.10.2025, wherein kept under suspension of the
petitioners authorization, until further orders, without issuing any notice or
opportunity, without conducting any enquiry, as illegal arbitrary, without
jurisdiction, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the
provisions of A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2018, and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to continue
the petitioner as fair price shop dealer in Shop No.0132033 of Tarlakota
village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam 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 to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to distribute the same
to the respective card holders under Public Distribution System, in Shop
No.0132033, of Tarlakota village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, by
suspending the operation of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Palasa, Srikakulam District, the 4th respondent, proceedings in
Rc.No.137/2025/DT(LR) dt.03.10.2025, pending disposal of the above writ
petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
Impugning the suspension proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer/the 4th respondent herein, vide Rc.No.137/2025/DT(LR), dated 03.10.2025, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri M.Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
3. While reiterating the contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer/the 4th respondent herein has suspended the petitioner‟s dealership for an indefinite period, contrary to Clause 8(4)(2) of the A.P State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short „Control Order, 2018). When the Control Order specifically mentions a period of 90 days, the authorities cannot suspend the dealership indefinitely. In support of his contention, he relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL V/S A NEELIMA1. He further contented that this Hon‟ble Court, by order dated 29.12.2025, suspended the impugned proceedings. It would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authorities to conclude the enquiry at the earliest.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while justifying the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted that there is neither any illegality nor procedural irregularity in passing such order. As a precautionary measure, to protect the interests of the consumers/cardholders, such order has been passed. If this Court is inclined to interfere with the said 1 1996 LawSUit (AP) 956 4 order, liberty may be given to the authorities to conclude the enquiry in a stipulated period.
5. Perused the record and considered the submissions.
6. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop dealer on a permanent basis since 1991, vide shop No.0132033 of Tarlakota Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. The said authorization has been renewed till 31.03.2027. Basing on a complaint given against the petitioner‟s dealership, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a show cause notice dated 27.06.2025 asking the petitioner to submit explanation by giving 7 days time. For which, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 14.07.2025. Pending enquiry, the order impugned dated 03.10.2025 has been issued by the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer suspending the dealership temporarily (Interim Suspension) until further orders, invoking the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. The said order is assailed in the writ petition solely on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer-the 4th respondent herein cannot suspend the dealership for an indefinite period, which is contrary to Clause 8(4)(2) of the Control Order, 2018.
7. In support of the petitioner‟s case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in JOINT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL V/S A NEELIMA (supra), wherein para-2 is relevant to extract:-
"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 vs. 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 5 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 delership 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. A perusal of the Control Order referred supra in the Judgment shows that the authority concerned cannot suspend the dealership of the petitioner pending enquiry for an indefinite period and, at most, he can suspend the dealership for a period of three months, within which the enquiry has to be concluded. This Court, by order dated 29.12.2025, suspended the impugned proceedings. As stated supra, the suspension period cannot be permitted "until further orders" beyond three months period.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, instead of going into the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction:-
"The 4th respondent is directed to complete the enquiry at the earliest and pass orders. Till conclusion of the enquiry, the interim order dated 29.12.2025 shall continue."
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 02.01.2026.
JLV 6 227 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36182/2025 Date: 19.01.2026 JLV