THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4907 of 2010 Dated:04.03.2010 Between: P.Prem Kumar. ...Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Dept.of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4907 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a businessman of Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. On credible information, the third respondent conducted a check at the residence of the petitioner and seized 660 litres of blue kerosene. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act), were initiated. The Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, after issuing notice under Section 6B of the Act and considering the explanation, passed orders on 08.10.2007 ordering 100% confiscation of the seized stock in favour of the Government. Crime No.366 of 2006 was registered before P.S.Asif Nagar. After investigation the concerned filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.476 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The same is pending. The petitioner contends that when once the competent authority initiates criminal proceedings of confiscation in proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, continuance of the criminal case under Section 7 of the Act is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the contention, the Government ought to have exercised power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, 1973 (Cr.P.C), and directed the concerned Public Prosecutor to withdraw the calendar case. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition for the following relief. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not withdrawing the complaint in C.C.No476/2007 on the file of the learned VI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (arising from Crime No.366/2006 on the file of the P.S., Asif Nagar, Hyderabad) as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the Complaint in C.C.No.476/2007 on the file of the learned VI-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by exercising the power conferred under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The Writ Petition is misconceived. The relief as prayed cannot be granted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the person is aggrieved by the launching of a criminal case or criminal trial in a pending case, the remedy is to seek quashing of the same under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or quashing of such criminal case in a Writ Petition. Indeed, the petitioner has already filed Criminal Petition No.9944 of 2009 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.476 of 2007. The same was dismissed. Therefore, he cannot again agitate the matter before this Court. In Mohd.Rasool Khan v State of Andhra Pradesh[1] I have considered this aspect of the matter. The relevant passages from the said judgment are as follows. In exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, it is always possible for this Court to quash a criminal case pending at the stage of trial. Also it is possible to set aside any judgment of the competent Juridical Magistrate of I Class or competent Sessions Court if such judgment is passed within jurisdiction or is in violation of principles of natural justice (see State of M.P. v Babu Lal (AIR 1977 SC 1718), P.V.Somaraju v Munsif Magistrate, Bhimavaram (AIR 1968 AP 22), and D.Sambamurthy v Collector, E.G.Dist. (1979 (2) ALT105) and paragraph 28 of Vol.I of Halsbury’s Law 4th Edn.). Insofar as challenge to a judgment/order passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is concerned, a writ petition would not lie. The petitioner has a constitutional remedy of approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an application under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Though the power vested in High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is broad and pervading, while exercising such power, however, the judgment of the High Court in exercise of it constitutional power of statutory power or power vested under the procedural law or special law or inherent power cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, however, subject to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent which provides an intra-court appeal against the judgments/orders passed by the learned single Judge. In a recent judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra ((2002) 4 SCC 388), a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court considered the scope and power under Articles 32, 132, 133, 134, 136 and 226 of the Constitution to entertain a “curative petition” filed by an aggrieved person seeking, in effect, a rehearing of a case which was already decided. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows: Therefore, on principle, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to coordinate courts and a fortiorari to superior courts. Thus a High Court cannot issue a writ to another High Court, nor can one Bench of High Court issue a writ to a different Bench of the same High Court; much less to the Supreme Court. Though, the judgments/orders of High Courts are liable to be corrected by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133 and 134 as well as under Article 136 of the Constitution, the High Courts are not constituted as inferior courts in our constitutional scheme. Therefore, the Supreme Court would not issue as writ under Article 32 to a High Court. Further, neither a larger bench of the Supreme Court can issue a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution to any other Bench of the Supreme Court. Moreover, Article 32 can be invoked only for the purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights conferred in Part III and it is a settled position of law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. Furthermore, the superior courts of justice do not also fall within the ambit of State or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution. There is no doubt that the Chief Rationing Officer ordered 100% confiscation for the serious contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. Merely because the Chief Rationing Officer warned the petitioner that he will be punished severely under Section 7 of the Act, it cannot be inferred as accepting the 100% confiscation and exempting from prosecution. Be it noted, no public authority nor executive can issue an order exempting any person from criminal liability under law. The petitioner has already availed remedy under Section 482 of Cr.P.C unsuccessfully. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 04.03.2010 vs [1] 2004 (2) ALT 57