IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 5200 of 2007 Between: Epicherla Raghavulu, S/o. Epicherla Krishna, R/o. Musallakunta Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District Eluru. 2 The Joint Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvuru,W.G District, Eluru 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nallajerla(M) W.G District, Eluru. 5 Sri Bhogaraju,S/o. not Known to the Petitioner, R/o.Musallakunta Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, Eluru. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing and handing over the petitioners fair price shop to the ﬁfth unoﬃcial respondent without following the requisite procedure contemplated under the Essential commodities the Act, arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: S.SURENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 5200 of 2007 O R D E R: Petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Musallkunta village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. On 24-09-2003, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and the stocks available were seized alleging variations between the book balance and the ground stocks. Pursuant thereto Crime No.128 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the P.S. Ananthapur has been registered and the investigation is still pending. However, the respondents 3 and 4 stopped releasing the essential commodities to the petitioner for distribution to the cardholders from the date of the seizure in spite of the fact that his authorization is subsisting. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. Though notice before admission was ordered on 09-03-2007 and the matter adjourned thereafter number of times, the respondents have not ﬁled any counter- affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Even assuming that the criminal proceedings as well as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are pending against the petitioner, the law is well-settled that as long as he is holding a valid authorization the respondents are bound to release the essential commodities for distribution to the cardholders. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate representation requesting release of stocks for distribution to cardholders. On receipt of such representation, the respondents 3 and 4 shall consider the same and release the commodities in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is not entitled, the reasons for not releasing the commodities shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s application. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 11-11-2008 KLP