IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 17899 of 2005 Between: Rudrapaka Rajeswara Sarma, S/o. Viyyaswara Sarma, Manager, Sri Surya Pesticides and Fertilisers, Nidamanuru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND Sub Inspector of Police, ECCS Department, ELURU, West Godavari. .....RESPONDENT 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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by setting aside the judgment dt. 22-9- 2004 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, Eluru. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KRISHNA MOHAN SIKHARAM Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.17899 of 2005 ORDER: Sri Krishna Mohan Sikharam, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the order impugned and would maintain that though there are no deviations, certain items had not been deleted and no proper findings had been recorded in this regard. 2. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken this Court through the impugned order and would maintain that in the light of the reasons recorded by both the Joint Collector and also by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru, this is not a fit case to be interfered with. 3. Heard both the learned counsel. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari by setting aside the judgment dated 22.9.2004 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Eluru, and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated that the petitioner has been running a shop under the name and style of Sri Surya Pesticides and Fertilizers at Nadamanuru. It is also stated that the respondent had conducted a raid on 30th August, 2000, on his shop with a mala fide intention and issued a show cause notice under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act on 28.12.2005 wherein he framed three charges against the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted his written explanation on 20th March, 2001, wherein he requested the Joint Collector to release the sockets, but the Joint Collector instead of considering his explanation, refused his explanation. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 6C of Essential Commodities Act before the Court of Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act, i.e., Principal District Judge at Eluru. Further it is stated that the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, was pleased to allow the appeal in part by deleting items 7 to 9 and 20 from the table shown in the charge sheet and the rest of the appeal on the other items was dismissed on 22.9.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment in the said appeal i.e., CMA No.57 of 2001, the present Writ Petition had been filed on the following grounds: (1) The order of the District Judge, Eluru is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; (2) the District Judge ought to have allowed the appeal on the basis of written explanation submitted by the petitioner and the same should have been considered by the District Judge; (3) the District Judge though held in his Judgment that ‘hence the variations are only technical”, did not consider the items shown under the Head of Fertilizers under items 1 and 2; (4) the District Judge should have considered that the Shakti 150 g Vikas “close balance was shown as 36 packets as on 10.2.2000 in old book and the same was not carry forward in new book”. Hence the contention of the respondent that there was variation in the stock is factually incorrect and (5) the District Judge should have considered that PYRIBAN 1 Litre was purchased under two bills on 31.7.2000 and 11.8.2000 in fact half liter bottles were shown in excess by mistake and hence there is no variation. Further it is stated that the District Judge ought to have held that there are no variations in the list. 6. The learned District Judge recorded reasons in detail and answered the point framed at paragraph 8 from paragraphs 9 to 13. It is not as though the contentions, which are being advanced before this Court had not been advanced even before the learned District Judge. Even otherwise this Court exercising Certiorari jurisdiction, may not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the preliminary authority, the Joint Collector, and also the appellate authority, the learned District Judge. Hence, in view of the limitations imposed on this Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- 19.02.2008 SSR To 1. Sub Inspector of Police, ECCS Department, ELURU, West Godavari. 2. 2CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies (OUT) 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}