HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.8343 of 2011 Date : 29-3-2011 Between : Sharabu Subba Rao .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector (CS), Prakasam, Prakasam District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Lakshma Reddy Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not supplying the essential commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop No.24, Viswanadhapuram, Podili, Prakasam District for public distribution as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer of the above mentioned shop. Following an inspection made on 16-11- 2010, the essential commodities available in the petitioner’s shop were seized under a panchanama. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") were initiated. Show cause notice dated 27-11-2010 was issued under Section 6-B of the Act. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his explanation on 14- 12-2010. Simultaneously, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 27-11-2010 calling upon the petitioner to explain why disciplinary action shall not be taken as against him. The petitioner claimed that an explanation was submitted on 10-12-2010 and that so far enquiry has not been completed and no orders have been passed either in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act or by respondent No.2 in pursuance of show cause notice dated 27-11-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of subsistence of his authorization, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been allotting the commodities to the shop for distribution. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has requested for a pass-over to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner’s authorization is still in force. In the post-lunch session, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, reported to the court that the petitioner’s authorization has not been suspended so far. So long as the petitioner’s authorization subsists, he is entitled to distribute the essential commodities despite pendency of proceedings before respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, non-allotment of the essential commodities to the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to function as fair price shop dealer by allotting the essential commodities so long as his authorization continues to be in force. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos10356 and 10357 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 29-3-2011 AM