THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17605 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in registering a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and seizing available stocks from the fair price shop held by the petitioner on 11.07.2010 as illegal and also to declare that the resignation letter was taken from him by the authorities by force. The petitioner was a dealer of fair price shop bearing No.03039 of Khammam Town. He was appointed in Ex-Servicemen quota. From time to time, the authorization granted to him was renewed and it is lastly renewed and valid up to 31.12.2011. The fourth respondent – Deputy Tahsildar Civil Supplies, Khammam Urban Area, inspected the premises of his shop and alleging that he has violated the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 and Clauses 3(B) and 3(2) of the Kerosene (Restrictions on Use and Fixation of Selling Price) Order, 1993, which is framed under the Act, seized Qts.125.51 Kgs of rice, 1 Quintal 39 Kgs and 5 Grams of sugar, 196.00 liters of palmolin oil, 50 kgs of blackgram dall and 80.00 liters of kerosene oil, all worth about Rs.33,611/-. Pursuant to the same, a report was prepared under Section 6-A of the Act by the fourth respondent and sent to the first respondent - Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Khammam, who is the competent authority under Section 6- A of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegation that he has made entries as if he has supplied some commodities to some cardholders is false and incorrect and that he has not violated any of the provisions referred to above. It is also his case that the respondents obtained his resignation by force. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner worked as Sergeant in Indian Air Force but not as a pilot as stated in the affidavit filed by him. It is further stated that the petitioner was running fair price shop by keeping a benami person, by name, Rachakonda Venkateswarlu @ Rachakonda Venkateswara Rao, and he has made entries as if some commodities were supplied to the cardholders, whose cards pertaining to never existed persons. With regard to allegation of the petitioner that his resignation was taken by force, it is categorically stated that the petitioner himself rendered his resignation to respondent No.2 through respondent No.4 on 11.07.2010, as such, the question of taking resignation from him by force does not arise. It is to be seen that pursuant to the report submitted by the fourth respondent under Section 6-A of the Act, the matter is seized up for enquiry before the first respondent. Whether the petitioner has violated the provisions referred to above is a matter for enquiry before the authority under Section 6-A of the Act. Even before passing any order by the competent authority and the matter is examined on the contraventions alleged against the petitioner, he has come up with this writ petition questioning very registration of the case against him under Section 6-A of the Act. If any stock is seized in contravention or violation of the provisions referred to above, the authority under Section 6-A of the Act is empowered to examine the validity thereof based on the report submitted by the fourth respondent. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to declare very registration of the case against the petitioner, seizure of stocks and proceeding further to examine such allegations as illegal. Even with regard to the allegation of the petitioner that his resignation was forcibly taken, it is not in dispute that he has not disputed his signature on the resignation letter. The petitioner worked earlier as Sergeant in Indian Air Force. In view of the averment in the counter-affidavit, the version of the petitioner that his resignation was taken forcibly cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, keeping open to the petitioner to put forth his defence before the first respondent in the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act, I dismiss the writ petition. However, it is made clear that the first respondent may consider the objections raised by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued under Section 6-A of the Act before passing appropriate final order. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th SEPTEMBER, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni