M SHASHIKALA Vs. COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this Court (B. Sudershan Reddy, J.) has referred these matters for a decision by this Bench on the facts and for the reasons which are stated in his Order, which reads as under: In these two writ petitions a common question arises for consideration and as such, they are being disposed of by a common order. It would be enough to refer to the facts in W.P,No.356 of 1996 for disposal of these matters.

(2.) The petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the endorsement dated 2-1-1996 as illegal. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to the respondents herein to release the supplies of essential commodities to the fair price shop run by the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to distribute the same to the card holders in the said shop.

(3.) The petitioner is an authorised fair price shop dealer of Rajunagar Thanda and there are five thandas within the area of operation of the said shop. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Mahaboobnagar conducted a search of the petitioner's fair price shop on 2-12-1995 at 4 p.m. on credible information that the petitioner was not distributing the essential commodities to the card holders properly and was diverting the essential commodities to the open market for sale to make illegal gain, In the process of search, two quintals of sugar loaded in four bags of 50 kgs., each was seized and a panchanama was conducted alleging that the petitioner had contravened Clause (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing & Distribution) Order, 1982 and Clauses 3 and 4 and conditions of the authorisation issued under Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. During the course of such search and seizure, the panchanama discloes, that 9 card holders were alleged to have been examined and the said card holders are alleged to have stated that the petitioner was not distributing the essential commodities especially sugar to the card holders. However, the said card holders are alleged to have stated that the petitioner was selling rice at Rs.3/- per Kg. instead of selling at Rs.2/- per Kg. and sugar at Rs.9-50 ps. per Kg. and kerosene at Rs.3-50 ps. per litre. The seized stock of sugar was handed over to another fair price shop dealer at Arikilla village. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner herein was not present at the time of the search and seizure by the Vigilance Inspector. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner apprehending arrest moved this Court in Crl.P.No.6250 of 1995 for Anticipatory bail and the same was granted by this Court on 27-12-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kollhondla seeking supply of the essential commodities by application dated 1-1-1996 received in the office of the 2nd respondent on 2-1-1996 and the 2nd respondent by his proceedings dated 2-1-1996 has made an endorsement returning the application thatin view of the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the 1st respondent- District Collector had instructed that the essential commodities should not be supplied to such of .those dealers against whom proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are initiated.