IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11670 of 2009 Between: Pilla Simhachalam S/o. Paidayya R/o. Rama Krishnapuram, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The Tahsildar Eluru Mandal Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The Revenue Inspector Eluru Town Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 The Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar Eluru West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to set aside order, dated 19.05.2009 whereby respondent No.2 made in-charge arrangements attached to the fair price shop of the petitioner for distribution of seized stock. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 10.05.2009, the Tahsildar, Eluru inspected fair price shop No.23 and booked a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the ground that the petitioner was found to have committed certain irregularities and seized the ground stock. Following the seizure, the stocks were handed over to the dealer of fair price shop No.25 of Eluru Town and respondent No.2 directed interim disposal of seized stock through the in-charge dealer, under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings. At the hearing, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner is not seriously questioning seizure and sale of interim disposal of the seized stock, he is only apprehending that the respondents may not supply essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution through the fair price shop held by him. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that so far the petitioner’s authorization has not been suspended. Having regard to the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not seriously questioning seizure and sale of interim disposal of seized stock, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of interim disposal passed by respondent No.2. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner’s authorization has not been suspended or cancelled, respondent No.2 is directed to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution of the same to the cardholders so long as his authorization remains in force. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15037 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th JUNE, 2009. kvni