THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7957 of 2011 Dated 25th March, 2011 Between: Smt. D. Aruna …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Nizamabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order in case No.CS6/75/2011-2 dated 09.03.2011 of respondent No.1, whereby he has ordered interim disposal of the seized essential commodities from the petitioner’s fair price shop. I have heard Sri P.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Following an inspection of the petitioner’s fair price shop and on noticing certain alleged irregularities, certain quantities of essential commodities were seized from the petitioner’s fair price shop on 15.02.2011 and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has directed that the seized stock shall be sold in open auction and remit the sale proceeds to the credit of the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has not committed any illegality and that at the instance of a former extremist, who is presently working as Sarpanch of the Village, the case has been foisted against his client. I am afraid, this submission of the learned counsel cannot be examined at this stage because proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending. Whether the petitioner is guilty of commissions and omissions as alleged against her or not needs to be adjudicated in the pending proceedings by respondent No.1. Under Section 6-A of the Act, respondent No.1 is vested with the power for ordering interim disposal. Considering the fact that the commodities seized were meant for public distribution system, I am not inclined to interfere with the interim disposal order. If the petitioner succeeds in the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, she will be entitled to receive the sale proceeds. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the petitioner’s authorization is in subsistence, the respondents have stopped allotment of essential commodities for distribution of the same to the cardholders. Needless to observe that so long as the petitioner’s authorization continues to be in force, she is entitled to continue as the fair price shop dealer irrespective of pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Subject to the observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9879 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th March, 2011 GHN