IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24223 of 2007 Between: Koneru Veeraiah S/o. Subba Rao Musunuru (V & M) Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Food , Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs (CS-I) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 3 Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 22-06-2007 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.29 of Musunuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. On the complaint of cardholders of Musunuru Village that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Nuzvid, initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Joint Collector, Krishna District, and the said proceedings are pending. By notice dated 02-04-2007, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to attend enquiry and personal hearing on 05-04-2007 on the same irregularities and by order dated 03-04-2007, the petitioner’s authorization was kept under suspension, pending enquiry. The Tahsildar, Vissannapeta was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report on 26- 05-2007, wherein he stated that the petitioner distributed the entire stock to the cardholders and that the cardholders are satisfied with his distribution of essential commodities. On the strength of the said opinion of the cardholders, the Tahsildar reported that the petitioner has not committed any lapses deliberately. Based on the said report, the petitioner’s authorization was restored by imposing a fine of Rs.500/-, pending final decision of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. On 04-06-2007, certain cardholders again made representations against the petitioner on which the Tahsildar, Nuzvid, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Purporting to relying on the report of Tahsildar, Nuzvid, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order cancelling the earlier order and restoring the cancellation order till the final decision in Section 6-A proceedings. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that respondent No.2 has been passing different orders at different times. The impugned proceedings do not show that he exercised his power independently under Clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. The fact that whenever he passed an order either suspending the petitioner’s authorization or restoring it, he has made the said order subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act fortifies the view of this Court that as an interim arrangement, pending the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, respondent No.2 has been passing the varied orders. These orders being purely interim in nature, I do not find any justification for respondent No.2 to keep on entertaining repeated representations from the cardholders and appointing successive enquiry officers. Under the circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Joint Collector, Krishna District, to dispose of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act said to have been instituted against the petitioner and pending before him, if not already done, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the said proceedings, status quo as on today with regard to distribution of essential commodities shall be maintained. This shall necessarily mean that if the petitioner is distributing the commodities as on today, he shall not be disturbed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.583 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 8th July, 2008 vrn