THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10497 of 2010 Dated:30.04.2010 Between: Poluri Mallikarjuna, And others. …Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10497 of 2010 ORDER: The five petitioners are residents of Vatambedu Village of Tada Mandal in Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District. On 07.04.2010 the third respondent visited the Village and inspected the premises of the first petitioner. At the time of inspection one lorry was loading and another was unloading rice from cattle shed opposite to the house allegedly for the purpose of taking it for getting polished for distribution to agricultural coolies. The third respondent seized the stock and submitted a report to the first respondent alleging that the petitioners contravened clauses 2K and 2K(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, and that they did not obtain licence for dealing with such huge quantity of boiled rice transported from Tamilnadu. After receiving the report, the first respondent issued notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act), to show cause as to why the stocks seized should not be confiscated. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners invoked the prohibition jurisdiction of this Court. It is trite that a writ of prohibition shall not be issued by the High Court unless the statutory authority or decision maker suffers from absolute lack of jurisdiction. Indisputably, under Section 6-A of the Act the Joint Collector/Collector (Civil Supplies) is competent authority to confiscate the essential commodities for contravention of provisions of the Act or any Control Order made under Section 6 thereof. Whether the petitioner is required to obtain licence when he is not involved in the business and when he was importing bulk quantity of boiled rice allegedly for distribution to coolies is a matter to be gone into by the Joint Collector. Therefore, this Court is convinced that this writ petition for prohibition is misconceived. The petitioner may approach the Joint Collector and raise all objections including the one raised before this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.04.2010 vs