IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19044 of 1997 Between: E.Ramasubba Reddy, S/o. Subbi Reddy, Somaladoddi post and Village, Anantapur Mandal and Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Commissioner of civil Supplies (Appeals) Civil Supplies Bhavan, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.K.3/8653/92,dt.6-10-1994 of the 1st respondent and the G.O.Ms.No.287,Food and Civil Supply (CS-IV-1) ,Department, dt.2.6.1997 passed on the order of the 2nd respondent in so far as conﬁscating 75% of the seized stock belonging to the petitioner as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and unsustainable and set aside the same in so far as they are against the petitioner as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and unsustainable and set aside the same in so far as they are against the petitioner holding that the charge against the petitioner are not proved and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19044 of 1997 ORDER: The ﬁrst petitioner is a fair price shop (FPS) dealer of Somaladoddi Village in Anantapur District. On 17.08.1992 the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Anantapur, inspected his shop and found certain contraventions after inspecting the registers maintained by him. Physical veriﬁcation of stocks was also conducted and it was found that there were variations in the ground stock and the stock register. It was also found that he was allegedly selling the commodities at higher price and was not obtaining the signatures of the cardholders in the registers. A report, therefore, was submitted to the ﬁrst respondent. The ﬁrst respondent initiated action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity). After receiving notice under Section 6B of the Act, the ﬁrst petitioner submitted explanation. After considering the explanation, the Joint Collector examined the matter with reference to four charges framed. These charges are i) the ﬁrst petitioner failed to obtain signatures of cardholders in the sales registers for rice and kerosene and kept shortage of 60 kgs of sugar on 17.08.1992, and thereby violated condition No.4 of Form of Authorization issued under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973; ii) that he sold rice at Rs.3.75 per kg, sugar at Rs.7.50 per kg and kerosene at Rs.3.50 per litre as against the controlled prices ﬁxed by the Government and violated condition No.7 of the authorization; iii) he failed to produce Form of Authorization, kerosene licence etc., on the date of inspection and thereby contravened condition No.9 of authorization, and iv) he failed to exhibit price list on stock board at the entrance of his shop and violated condition No.11 of authorization. The ﬁrst respondent on perusal of the record came to the conclusion that all the four charges are proved and explanation of the ﬁrst petitioner is not convinced. Accordingly, he ordered conﬁscation of 75% of seized property to the Government under Section 6-A of the Act, and ordered release of 25% of the stock to him. Aggrieved by the same, the ﬁrst petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal under Section 6C of the Act before the second respondent. The same having been dismissed on 02.06.1997, vide G.O.Ms.No.287, the present writ petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when charge Nos.3 and 4 were held to have not been proved against the ﬁrst petitioner, for the trivial charge of not taking the signatures of cardholders in the registers, conﬁscation of 75% of seized stock is on the higher side and disproportionate to the alleged contraventions. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that FPS dealer is required to obtain signatures of cardholders in all the registers in proof of the stock being lifted, and therefore, it is mandatory. In the absence of such signatures, it has to be presumed that the ﬁrst petitioner has diverted the stock, which is a serious charge. As rightly pointed out, ﬁnding of the original authority on charge Nos.3 and 4 was not accepted by the appellate authority. It was, however, found that the signatures or thumb impressions of the cardholders were not obtained, and there was variation in the stock. The appellate authority also found that shortage of essential commodities is far in excess of the permissible limits. For these reasons, appellate authority imposed the punishment of conﬁscation of 75% of seized stock. While doing so, the appellate authority has applied sound discretion. When a quasi-judicial authority having regard to the documents and evidence on record exercises sound discretion, unless and until, it is grossly perverse, no interference is called for in a writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merits, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.09.2008 vs To 1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Commissioner of civil Supplies (Appeals) Civil Supplies Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 2CCs to G.P. for civil supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK}