IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2530 of 2008 Between: Sri Muttaiah S/o.Yadaiah, TD Gutta,Mahabubnagar Town Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar 2 The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District Mahabubnagar. 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Mahabubnagar District,Mahabubnagar. 4 The Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.1 in proceedings No.CS7/550/2006, dated 13.12.2007. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.21 of T.D.Gutta, Mahabubnagar. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated against him. Respondent No.2 disposed of the said proceedings by his order, dated 22.04.2006 by ordering confiscation of the seized stock to the Government and levying penalty of three times on the differential rate between open market and P.D.S. Rice in respect of 19.53 quintals of the rice found in shortage. He also directed that the authorization issued to the petitioner, which is deemed to have been automatically cancelled for his failure to renew in time, be cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner filed a purported appeal before respondent No.1 questioning the said order. However, respondent No.1 having found that no appeal can be entertained against the order of the Joint Collector exercising her original jurisdiction treated the same as a revision petition under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the 2001 Order’) and dismissed the said revision petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that the approach of respondent No.1 is wholly perverse. Being the District Collector, she is expected to be aware of the statutory provisions under the Act which provide for an appeal under Section 6C to the District Collector against the order passed under Section 6A of the said Act. Oblivious of this legal position, respondent No.1 treated the appeal filed by the petitioner as revision under the 2001 Order and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2, which is beyond her jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the order passed by respondent No.1 which is impugned in this writ petition is set aside. Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 6C of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th APRIL, 2008 kvni