IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 25406 of 2009 Between: Eluri Venkata Siva, S/o Anjaneyulu, 26 years, Kalidindi, Ration shop Dealer, Kailkaluru Taluk, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25406 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the stock register, sale register pertaining to fair price shop No.3 under Authorization No.319/KLD- GDV/2008, D.No.4/161/1, Kotakalidindi, Kalidindi village and Mandal, Krishna District, and also not issuing release order for distribution of the essential commodities to the cardholders, as being illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer at Kotakalidindi village, Krishna District and that he has been distributing essential commodities to all the cardholders in the village, without any complaint. While so, on 16.11.2009, the 4th respondent came to the fair price shop of the petitioner and verified the registers and directed him to come to the office of the 3rd respondent along with stock register and sale register. Accordingly, the petitioner handed over the said registers to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the petitioner made representations on 17.11.2009 and 18.11.2009 to the 3rd respondent for return of the said registers. Subsequently, on 19.11.2009, respondents 3 and 4 visited the fair price shop of the petitioner and locked and sealed the said shop without any reason. It is stated that the authorization of the petitioner is subsisting as on date and that the respondents stopped the supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner without passing any orders either suspending or canceling his authorization. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. From the material available on record, it is clear that on the directions of the 4th respondent, the petitioner handed over the stock register and sale register to the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent inspected the fair price shop of the petitioner, on 19.11.2009, and locked and sealed the said shop, without assigning any reason, and on the very same day the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent for return of the said registers. However, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the authorization of the petitioner is subsisting as on date and that the 3rd respondent, without initiating required disciplinary proceedings, has seized the aforesaid registers and locked the business premises of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to distribute the essential commodities to the cardholders in accordance with the provisions of Control Order, provided the authorization of the petitioner is in force. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. No order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 20-11-2009 Gsn.