THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18941 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in stopping the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner with regard to fair price shop Nos.29 and 30 of Bolledupalem Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. The third respondent is a regularly appointed fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities. Pursuant to the seizure effected in its premises, with regard to 352 liters of kerosene, 35 kgs of AAY rice and 3.45 quintals of PDS rice, proceedings under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, East Godavari at Kakinada, and the supplies of essential commodities to the third respondent were stopped and the petitioner is appointed as a temporary dealer as ad hoc arrangement. It is the case of the petitioner that though it is holding valid authorisation for distribution of essential commodities, respondents 1 and 2 have stopped the supplies as such it approached this Court. This Court by order, dated 13.09.2006 issued interim directions to respondents 1 and 2 to supply the essential commodities on the authorisation given to the petitioner. When the matter is taken up today for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent produced before this Court a copy of judgment, dated 21.04.2006, of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, in Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2005, which is preferred by the third respondent. A perusal of the copy of aforesaid judgment indicates that the learned Sessions Judge allowed Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2005 by setting aside order, dated 29.08.2005, passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, in regard to confiscation of the stock and imposition of the penalty of Rs.1,000/-. Though the Writ Petition is of 2006, no counter-affidavit is filed. However, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, that in view of finalization of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, now, respondents 1 and 2 are intending to restore the fair price shop authorisation to the third respondent. As much as it is not in dispute that no independent order has been passed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, which was in force at the relevant point of time, as the proceedings initiated against the third respondent under Section 6-A of the Act are terminated in view of allowing of Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2005 preferred by it, as it is stated that respondents 1 and 2 are taking steps to restore the fair price shop authorisation to the third respondent and as the petitioner is only a temporary dealer appointed on ad hoc basis in view of registration of the case against the third respondent, I deem it appropriate to permit respondents 1 and 2 to take steps for restoration of fair price shop authorisation to the third respondent, as expeditiously as possible. Further, there shall be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 that till the fair price shop authorisation of the third respondent is restored, the supplies shall be continued to the petitioner. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni