IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.988 of 2011 Between: Podeti Raghava Rao. … Petitioner And The State, reptd., by District Collector (CS), Khammam District at Khammam and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.R.Avula. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 19-1-2011 of respondent No.3 and to consequently direct the respondents to allot essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders of Yedulapuram village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. I have heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer, whose shop was inspected and ten quintals of PDS rice was seized by the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 8-1-2011. On the report submitted by him, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) were initiated. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.3 directed alternative arrangements to be made for distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders of Yedulapuram and Muthagudem-I fair price shops in view of seizure of the petitioner’s premises and initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act by attaching the said shops to other fair price shop dealers. As rightly pleaded by the petitioner and submitted by the learned counsel appearing for him that mere initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act would not automatically result in the petitioner losing the right to distribute essential commodities so long as the authorization held by him remains in force. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that so far no order has been passed by the appointing/disciplinary authority suspending or varying the petitioner’s authorization. Therefore, the impugned order, by which the petitioner’s shop is attached to another dealer, cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the competent authority from initiating appropriate action against the petitioner on the basis of the inspection and seizure of rice from the petitioner’s shop. ------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-1-2011 Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (BO) MNR