HON’LE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17599 of 2010 Date: July 26, 2010 Between: M. Balakrishna Reddy, S/o. Muni Reddy, Hindu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Devulapalli village, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector (Civil Supplies), Nellore, Sri Potti- Sreeramulu Nellore District, and 4 others … Respondents Order: The petitioner questions order Rc.B.587/09, dated 12-01-2010, passed by the second respondent-Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Sri Pottisreeramulu Nellore District, under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Fifth respondent herein is an authorized Fair-Price Shop Dealer, dealing in essential commodities, under Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2008, a Control Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, with regard to Fair-Price Shop of Devulapalli village, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. His business premises was inspected and alleging black- marketing on his part, stocks of 622 kgs. of Rice, 292 kgs. of P.Oil, 860 ltrs. of K.Oil and 200 kgs. of Sugar were seized from the premises. Pursuant to seizure and the report submitted by the inspecting authority, proceedings were initiated against the fifth respondent under Section 6- A of the Act. The fifth respondent submitted his explanation pursuant to show-cause notice issued to him under Section 6-B of the Act and on considering the explanation offered by him, the second respondent-Joint Collector, who is the competent authority under Section 6- A of the Act, passed the impugned order confiscating the quantity of 200 kgs. of Sugar apart from imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- and disposed of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The petitioner herein, who claims to be a cardholder, for supply of essential commodities, on the authorization of the fifth respondent, challenges the impugned order on the ground that entire stocks that were seized from the premises of the fifth respondent ought to have been confiscated by the competent authority. It is to be seen that the second respondent-Joint Collector, who is the competent authority, by the impugned order, ordered a part of the stocks seized to be confiscated apart from imposing fine having regard to the nature of allegations and the explanation offered by the fifth respondent. In such an event, it is not open to the petitioner, who is one of the cardholders, to question the impugned order on the ground that entire stocks have not been confiscated. The issue, as to what quantity of stocks should be confiscated is wholly in the domain of the competent authority and it is not for the petitioner to suggest the quantum of stocks to be confiscated. Although the petitioner may have a locus, to the extent of brining to the notice of the competent authority about any irregularities that may take place, but when the competent authority has seized certain stocks and having regard to the allegations made and the explanation offered by the dealer, ordered confiscation, he cannot question the impugned order of confiscation alleging that entire seized quantity of stocks were not ordered to be confiscated. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 26, 2010 MRR