S. Srinivas v. District Supply Officer
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Sep 2011
- Bench
- R SUBHASH REDDY
Provisions considered
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 s. 6A
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Between: S. Srinivas … Petitioner
And District Supply Officer Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and another … Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.23152 OF 2006
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “To issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the panchanama conducted by the District Supply Officer, dated 5.11.2006 in petitioner’s shop No.407 is null and void…” The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of shop No.407 of Moosapet, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. His business premises were inspected by the District Supply Officer, Ranga Reddy District, along with his staff, and on the ground that there is variation in the stocks between the book balance and the ground balance, 37 Kgs. Rice and 400 liters of kerosene were seized. At the stage of admission, this Court on 7.11.2006 has granted an interim order directing status quo to be maintained. Said interim order is continued all along. The allegations made against the petitioner are matter for enquiry by the competent authority under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). No explanation was given by the petitioner with regard to the allegation of variation in stocks. This Court cannot conduct enquiry in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As it is stated that in view of interim order of status quo dt.7.11.2006 granted by this Court, no further steps have been taken by the authorities in the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the competent authority (Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District) to dispose of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The stocks seized in the matter shall not be sold pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
27.9.2011 Note: Office is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District for taking appropriate steps pursuant to the seizure of stocks in the case. (B.O)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 6A; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Sep 2011. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.