Telangana High Court
WP/27425/2005 of Gandi Appa Rao, Vs The Joint Collector, on 29 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.27425 OF 2005 Dt.29.12.2005 Between: Gandhi Apparao … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District And two others. … Respondents ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the first respondent dated 12.12.2005 made in proceedings
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
W.P.NO.27425 OF 2005
Dt.29.12.2005
Between:
Gandhi Apparao … Petitioner
And
The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District And two others. … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Petitioner questions the order of the first respondent dated12.12.2005 made in proceedings No.CC141/2005/CSR-5 in passingstay orders under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (forshort ‘the Act’) directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Atchutapuram,to dispose of the seized stocks to the cardholders, alleging that it is afinal order passed without following the due procedure prescribedunder Section 6-B of the Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learnedGovernment Pleader for Civil Supplies.
On getting instructions, the learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies submits that show cause notice under Section 6-B of theAct has been issued calling upon the petitioner to file his explanation giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing and he has yet tosubmit explanation and in the meanwhile application to release thesaid stocks is also filed on 14.12.2005 and therefore it cannot be saidthat the impugned order dated 12.12.2005 is a final order, but it isonly an interim order pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so long as theauthorization of the petitioner is not suspended or cancelled,distributing the said seized essential commodities through theMandal Revenue Officer may not be just and proper.
In so far as the stocks, which have not been seized, I am of theopinion that the petitioner is entitled to distribute the said essentialcommodities as long as his authorization will not be suspended orcancelled. But, in so far as the seized stocks are concerned, I do notfind any illegality in the said action of the Joint Collector in distributingthe said essential commodities to the cardholders through theMandal Revenue Officer.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as theenquiry under Section 6-A of the Act is pending and in view of noticeunder Section 6-B of the Act, it cannot be said that the impugnedorder is a final order. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the firstrespondent is directed to consider and dispose of the proceedingsunder Section 6-A of the Act after considering the explanation andalso consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on14.12.2005. In so far as the essential commodities, which have notbeen seized, are concerned, which are not the subject matter of theproceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the petitioner shall bepermitted to distribute the same as long as the authorization of thepetitioner is not suspended or cancelled.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
_________________
29.12.2005
kpr