IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27849 of 2009 Between: M.Balakrishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Joint Collector, (CS), Nellore and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27849 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is one of the cardholders of the fair price shop situated at Devulapally village, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is not distributing scheduled commodities properly and he is diverting the same into the black market and hence, the petitioner and other cardholders red-handedly caught hold of the 4th respondent and brought the same to the notice of the disciplinary/appointing authority i.e. the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. On that basis, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,1995 (for brevity ‘the Act’) have been initiated against the 4th respondent and the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, SPS Nellore District, issued a show cause notice. However, the authorization of the petitioner was not suspended. It is further stated that the 4th respondent approached this Court and filed the writ petition and this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to continue the 4th respondent as fair price shop dealer so long as the authorization is in force. Though the 2nd respondent is the competent to suspend the said authorization issued in favour of the 4th respondent and the orders passed by the High Court are also in no- way prohibit him from initiating necessary action, he has not initiated any action suspending the authorization. Hence, the petitioner and other cardholders gave a representation to the 1st respondent stating that the 4th respondent cannot be permitted to continue as a fair price shop dealer and necessary action has to be initiated. Despite the said representation, as no action has been initiated by the Joint Collector, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. The orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the 4th respondent are on the basis that the authorization of the 4th respondent was in force. Having regard to the fact that the authorization was in force, this Court directed the respondent authorities to continue the 4th respondent as fair price shop dealer. The said order, in my considered view, will not prohibit either the 2nd respondent or the 1st respondent, who are the competent disciplinary authorities, to suspend the authorization provided there is material evidence. Any way, as the petitioner and other cardholders approached the 1st respondent and gave a representation on 09-11- 2009, the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, SPS Nellore District, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 09-11-2009, and pass necessary orders thereon, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, before initiating any disciplinary action, the 1st respondent or the disciplinary authority i.e. 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, shall put the 4th respondent on notice, hear and pass necessary orders. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 22, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o. kvr