IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1280 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09.02.2008 in W.P.NO.19313 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt.G.Chandrakala W/o.Dathatrya, IDA Jeedimetla village, Quthbullapur Mandal Ranga Reddy District. ...APPELLANT AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.District at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1280 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19313 of 2008 on 06.09.2008. The Writ Petition is ﬁled assailing the action of the respondents in suspending the authorization of the appellant’s fair price shop No.216 situated at APIIC Colony, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District by issuing proceedings No.C/3959/2008 dated 23.08.2008. The case of the appellant is to the eﬀect that the order dated 23.08.2008 proceeds to suspend the authorization on the footing of initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (“the Act” for brevity), which itself is totally unsustainable especially in view of the fact that the competent authorities for both the said actions are different. Further, it has been pointed out that merely because the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have been issued, it does not warrant any interference. Learned Single Judge did not ﬁnd favour with the appellant’s case and dismissed the Writ Petition holding that both the proceedings are diﬀerent and the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act has nothing to do with the main action, which is an independent one in respect of certain allegations, which have been found during the course of inspection. Having considered the submissions made on either side, we are in the entire agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. Even though, orders for initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have been issued, that itself cannot be a ground for suspension. However, both the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and initiation in respect of the same as same allegation that is violation in stocks and records found at the time of inspection and their subsequent seizure. Both the proceedings will necessarily have to be proceeded independently. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the respondents shall complete the enquiry within a period of four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 14th October 2008 RRB