IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22880 of 2008 Between: B. Bharathi W/o. Rachander R/o. Pandurangapuram Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector (Civil Supplies) Khammam Khammam Dist. 2 The Dy. Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) Palvancha Khammam Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring proceedings MC.No.151/2008, dt.15-10-2008 passed by the respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and without authority of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22880 of 2008 O R D E R: Petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop No.21026 of Pandurangapuram Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District. The petitioner’s shop was inspected on 13-10-2008 by the Deputy Tahsildar, Palvancha and having noticed that there was shortage of 39-48 quintals of PDS rice and 390 litres of kerosene, the stock available in the shop was seized and a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was ﬁeld before the Joint Collector, Khammam. After considering the said report, the Joint Collector by order dated 15-10-2008 directed that pending ﬁnalization of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the seized stock shall be allotted to the Tahsildar, Palvancha for distribution to the cardholders under PDS for the month of November, 2008. The said order dated 15-10-2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and keeping in view that the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act is pending before the ﬁrst respondent, I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁable reason to interfere with the impugned order which was passed as an interim measure pending the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. Since admittedly, the petitioner is only an authorized dealer of the fair price shop and the stock seized are meant for public distribution system, the ﬁrst respondent cannot be said to have committed any error in directing distribution of the said commodities through the Tahsildar, Palvancaha. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 21-10-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP