HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18179 of 2010 Dated: 28-07-2010 Between: K. Nagamani. … Petitioner And The Collector (Civil Supplies), Mahaboobnagar & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18179 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer for distribution of Kerosene oil for shop No.10 of Shadnagar in Farooqnagar Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District. The authorisation of the petitioner was suspended on the ground that she has not distributed the total quantity allotted to the card holders, in the month of February 2010, and thus, violated the instructions of the higher authorities and also not maintained the records correctly. On the aforesaid ground, the available stock on the date of inspection, was seized. Based on the seizure report, proceedings were initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Joint Collector, who is the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, has passed final orders, dated 13th May 2010, by imposing the penalty of two times of difference of amount between the market value and the public distribution system rate on 1022 litres of kerosene oil and also ordered for confiscation of 25% of the value of other stocks seized. As against the order of suspension, the petitioner has also carried the matter by way of appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority disposed of the appeal, by an order, dated 22nd of May 2010, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to take further steps in the matter, in view of termination of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that against the orders of Joint Collector, dated 13th May 2010, the petitioner has filed an appeal, which is pending, but at the same time, in terms of the directions issued by the Joint Collector, no further steps are being taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer for restoring the petitioner’s authorisation. I have perused the order of suspension passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said order is passed as an interim measure, pending inquiry. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that in furtherance of the suspension orders, no further orders are passed. The earlier order was only an order of suspension pending inquiry. It is also to be noticed that when the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of suspension before the Joint Collector, the Joint Collector also disposed of the appeal by referring to the final orders under Section 6-A of the Act, and ordered the Revenue Divisional Officer to take necessary steps in the matter. In that view of the matter, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to pass further orders in continuation of suspension orders, taking into account the orders passed by the Joint Collector. As the earlier order is only an order of suspension pending inquiry, and in view of the directions issued by the Joint Collector in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the suspension order, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate further orders in the matter, taking into account the directions issued by the Joint Collector in the order, dated 22nd of May 2010, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th July 2010 ajr