IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7141 of 2008 Between: Smt. J.Jayalakshmi, Dealer, W/o.late Satyanarayana, Praksahnagar,Payakapuram, R/o.Luna center, Singhanagar, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 2 The Joint Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.N.R.S.S.S.VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 03-08-2007 of respondent No.1, whereby he confirmed orders dated 31-07-2006 and 23-05-2007, passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G.V.N.R.S.S.S.Vara Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, and perused the record. On the basis of inspection conducted on 19-11- 2005 by the Assistant Supply Officer, Circle No.1, Vijayawada, proceedings were initiated simultaneously under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short ‘the Control Order’). Both the said proceedings ended against the petitioner, with respondent No.2 passing final order on 18-02-2006 under Section 6-A of the Act, wherein he found that the irregularities alleged against the petitioner were proved and directed confiscation of the entire value of the seized stock to the Government. Respondent No.3, who initiated separate proceedings, cancelled the petitioner’s authorization by order dated 31-07-2006 and respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 23-05-2007. Respondent No.1 dismissed the revision petition on 03-08-2007. The petitioner filed appeal in E.C.Appeal No.57/06 before the Sessions Court, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam. In Crl.M.P.No.115 of 2006, the said Court passed order dated 511-05-2006, directing respondent No.2 to keep the sale proceeds of the value of the seized stock in a refundable deposit instead of irretrievably non-refundable deposit, facilitating the refund of the sale proceeds to the appellant in the event of her success. It is not in dispute that the simultaneous proceedings for confiscation of the seized stock and cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization were initiated based on a common inspection and common allegations. I am of the considered view that this Court need not go into the merits or otherwise of the orders passed by the hierarchical authorities under the provisions of the Control Order. The main reason, for my coming to this conclusion, is that while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court would not embark upon various disputed issues raised in the Writ Petition on the question, whether the findings rendered against the petitioner on various disputed facts are correct or not. Since the judicial authority viz., the Sessions Court, Krishna Division, is seized of the appeal filed against the order of respondent No.2, passed in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, on the same allegations on the basis of which the impugned orders are passed, I feel that the Sessions Court, being Court of appeal, would be in a better position to appreciate the disputed questions of fact. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the said appeal pending before the Court of Sessions, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam. If the petitioner succeeds in the said appeal by convincing the Sessions Court that she did not indulge in the alleged irregularities, respondent No.3 shall review the order passed by him cancelling the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization. This shall necessarily mean that if the Sessions Court holds that the petitioner did not commit any irregularity, she will be entitled to the revival of the fair price shop authorization. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9376 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 15th April, 2008 lur