HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2775 of 2010 Date: 23rd February 2010 Between: Yelagandula Sekhar. … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Khammam & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2775 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer, seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, by setting aside the panchanama, dated 05.02.2010, conducted in his shop bearing No.15/03015, and consequently, to direct the respondents to release 65.50 quintals of rice and 640 litres of kerosene, which was seized from his shop. 2. The 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, appears to have made an inspection into the premises of the petitioner, who is a dealer for fair price shop, authorisation of which, is governed by the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008, framed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On certain allegations that there are discrepancies between the actual ground stocks and the book balances, and that the petitioner is running the business in the premises, which is not authorised, and further, he has allowed the unauthorised persons to conduct the business, the available stocks i.e. 65.50 quintals of rice and 640 litres of kerosene, were seized. 3. In this writ petition, the seizure panchanama is questioned mainly on the ground that the variations noted during the inspection, are within the permissible limits, and that there is no basis for the allegations made against the petitioner. 4. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the authorisation of the petitioner is already suspended by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Proceedings No.C2/367/2010, dated 10.02.2010. 5. It is further submitted that the seizure is already reported to the Joint Collector, and the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are pending. 6. In view of the allegations made in the panchanama, it is not desirable for this Court to examine the allegations made against the petitioner, at this point of time. However, it is stated that the petitioner has also moved the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, seeking release of stocks. Whether such stocks are to be released or not, is to be considered by the 1st respondent, but even before taking any such decision by the competent authority, it is not open for the petitioner to question the panchanama and seek directions for release of the seized stocks. 7. In view of the pendency of the application of the petitioner, dated 8th February 2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the seized stocks and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the suspension order, dated 10th February 2010, passed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in Proceedings No.C2/367/2010, it is open for the him to pursue any other remedy available under the provisions of the A.P. Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2008. 8. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd February 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. (b/o) ajr