IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16649 of 2004 Between: P. Lakshmi Devi W/o late P. Obul Reddy R/o Yerraguntla Town and Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District 4 Smt. M. Nagamani W/o Nagesh 4th Ward F.P. Shop Dealer, R/o Yerraguntla Town and Mandal, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particulalry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent vide Ref. No. I(2)/1635/2004 dt 28-8-2004 as illegal, arbitrary since the proceedings before the RDO Kadapa are not concluded and consequently direct the respondents to take action against the 4th respondent as per rules and regulation till such time the essential commdities cannot be supplied Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16649 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is one of the ration cardholders of 4th Ward, Yerraguntla Town and Mandal, Kadapa District, and the 4th respondent is the dealer of the said fair price shop. Alleging that they are not being supplied with the essential commodities properly, the card holders made representations to respondents 1 to 3, whereupon, the Mandal Revenue Officer along with the Mandal Revenue Inspector inspected the shop of the 4th respondent and on verification, there was shortage of 13.31 Qtls of rice, 395 litres of K.Oil and 4.75 Qtls. of Sugar and that the sales and stock registers were not maintained properly and accordingly, the stocks have been seized under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and handed over to the Mandal Revenue Inspector and a report was sent to the Joint Collector for initiating action against the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent through order, dated 04-07-2004 suspended the authorization of the 4th respondent pending enquiry stating that the enquiry will be conducted by giving reasonable opportunity by way of issuing show cause notice. It is stated that thereafter the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, dated 28-08-2004, directing to release the entire seized stocks worth Rs.17,737-75 ps. to the 4th respondent with a warning and directing the 4th respondent to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders by maintaining the accounts properly. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the authorization of the 4th respondent was under suspension, there cannot be any justification on the part of the 1st respondent to release the said seized stocks in favour of the 4th respondent, as the 4th respondent is not entitled to distribute the essential commodities. A counter has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 stating that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the action of the Joint Collector in not initiating proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and the Joint Collector decided not to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and, therefore, release of the stocks in favour of the dealer cannot be said to be illegal. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents because when the authorization itself was under suspension, the question of allowing the dealer to distribute the essential commodities does not arise. It appears that the officials have shown unreasonable favoritism to the 4th respondent without any justification whatsoever. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, if the enquiry is not completed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to complete the enquiry. If enquiry is already completed and the proceedings against the petitioner have been dropped, no further action requires to be taken in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}