S. B. SINHA. , C. J.

( 1 ) DOUBTING the correctness of a Division bench decision of this Court in M. Shashikala v. Collector, Mahaboobnagar, this appeal, arising out of an order dated 8-1-2001 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 360 of 2001 has been referred to this Bench.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question involved we may notice the basic fact of the matter. The petitioner is an authorised dealer of a Fair Price Shop in visakhapatnam, which was valid up to 31-3-2001. The Sub-Inspector of Vigilance cell inspected the business premises of the petitioner. Essential commodities found therein. A criminal case was registered for alleged violation of Clauses 4, 16 (1) (a), (c), (d) and (4) and conditions 4 (i), 7,8,11 and 13 of authorisation issued under A. P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 and condition 3 of Form-B Licence issued under A. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 read with Section 7 (i) and 8 of the Essential commodities Act (the Act ). A proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner for confiscation of the seized articles viz. , rice and sugar in terms of Section 6-A of the Act. The licence of the appellant-petitioner admittedly had not been suspended, but, despite the same, essential commodities were not supplied to him for distribution amongst the card holders. Challenging the action of the authorities in not supplying the essential commodities for distribution among the card holders, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition following the aforementioned Division Bench judgment of this Court wherein it was held:inaction on the part of the Appointing authority under the Control Orders to initiate appropriate proceedings either for suspension or cancellation of the authorisation in cases where the cases are registered against the dealers for the alleged violations under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, itself is no ground for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to supply the essential commodities to such erring authorised dealers. . . . . . . Any such order by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India would amount to perpetration of a legal fraud. In matters of this nature where the fair price shop dealers who are subjected to proceedings under Section 6-A of the essential Commodities Act cannot for their wrong doing seek the aid or assistance of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the authorities to supply essential commodities to them for distribution and allow them to function as fair price shop dealers.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has placed before us a large number of decisions in B. Satyanarayana v. Joint Collector, Gundala Rama Murty v. The district Collector, P. Hanumantha Rao v. The chief Rationing Officer, Twin Cities, hyderabad and Md. Saleem v. Revenue divisional Officer, which were referred to in m. Shashikala s case (supra ). All these decisions were rendered by his Lordship p. V. Reddy, J. learned Counsel also relied upon a decision rendered by his Lordship syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. in p. Lakshminarasaiah v. Joint Collector.

( 4 ) IN all the above decisions, their lordship took the view that the proceedings under Section 6-A are quite distinct from the proceedings under Control Order and the mere fact that action was initiated under section 6-A of the Act does not automatically result in suspension or cancellation of the authorisation of the fair price Shop. It was further held that the authorities under the Act are required to apply their mind independently to the charges against the dealer and take its own decision instead of being led away by the initiation of the proceedings under section 6-A of the Act. It was also held that it was open to the competent authority, while deciding upon the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document