IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.17099 OF 2009. Between:- Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, a Partnership firm rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.G.Prabhakar. .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By District Collector, Nalgonda. .. Respondent ORDER:- The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in proceedings No.CS1/785/09, dated 27.07.2009 of the District Collector, Nalgonda, the respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondent to release 14457.60 quintals of paddy forthwith to the petitioner. The petitioner is a rice mill engaged in the business of milling paddy. It appears that on 10.05.2009 the Civil Supplies Task Force Team, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district seized 14,457.60 quintals of paddy from the petitioner and the same was reported to the District Collector-respondent herein, who in turn initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act. As it is the contention of the petitioner that the said paddy is meant for boiled rice, but not preferred rice, the respondent, by his order dated 25.05.2009, constituted a committee and directed them to undertake test milling of the superfine variety paddy and to submit a detailed report as to whether the said paddy is meant for preferred rice or boiled rice. Pursuant thereto, a report was furnished on 30.05.2009. Though the said report, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is in his favour, the respondent, without looking into the same, passed an order on 05.06.2009 directing the petitioner to mill the paddy and supply the raw rice. Immediately, the petitioner approached the respondent and submitted a petition stating that the said report of the three men committee was not considered while passing the said order dated 05.06.2009. However, the respondent again passed an order on 20.06.2009 to the very same effect. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 05.06.2009 and 20.06.2009 the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.12910 of 2009. This Court, at the time of admission, by its order dated 01.07.2009, agreeing with the contentions of the learned senior counsel Mr.E.Manohar allowed the said writ petition and set aside the said orders dated 05.06.2009 and 20.06.2009 holding that the said orders are without reference to the report furnished by the three men committee on 30.05.2009. However, this Court gave liberty to the District Collector to pass orders afresh by taking the said report dated 30.05.2009 into consideration. Pursuant to the said orders passed by this Court, another committee was constituted on 02.07.2009 by the respondent. The said committee submitted its report on 03.07.2009. Though the said report, again according to the learned senior counsel, is in favour of the petitioner, the District Collector again committed the same mistake i.e., without looking into the said report dated 03.07.2009 furnished by the committee and thus passed an order on 16.07.2009 directing the petitioner to mill the paddy. It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioners’ milling capacity is about ten tonnes. But by mistake, the respondent had taken the milling capacity of the petitioner as three tonnes and came to the conclusion that the said stocks held by the petitioner as on the date of inspection is in excess and accordingly, ordered confiscation of the entire seized paddy by his order dated 27.07.2009. As against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that the said reports dated 30.05.2009 and 03.07.2009 passed by the three men committee constituted by the respondent are not placed before the respondent during the course of the enquiry conducted under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. May be it is true that the same were not placed before the respondent by the officials of Vigilance and Enforcement Department, but when once the said reports were brought to the notice of the respondent by the counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before him and filed an affidavit, the respondent ought to have looked into the said reports. It is not as though the said reports should be filed only by the respondent officials but not by the petitioner. When once an affidavit, sworn to by the petitioner, is filed and the said reports are annexed to the affidavit, the respondent is duty bound to look into the said reports. For this reason, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said order of confiscation dated 27.07.2009 is bad. The learned senior counsel Mr.E.Manohar, during the course of arguments, has drawn my attention to G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 25.11.2008, which is the notification whereby, certain amendments were brought to the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008. Drawing my attention to clause 10 of the Control Order, 2008, the learned senior counsel submitted that as the petitioner is having ten (10) tonnes milling capacity per hour, he can hold a maximum stock of 25,200 quintals of preferred paddy as provided for under said notification. But, as the stock, which is seized is only boiled rice he can hold even more than that, as no limit is prescribed. From the said provision, which was amended through G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 25.11.2008, that if the capacity of a mill is three tonnes paddy per hour, the maximum stock limit is upto 10,800 quintals and in this context, the learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the order of confiscation passed by the respondent on 27.07.2009 and submitted that even the respondent opined that the mill is having three tonnes capacity and hence, the petitioner is entitled for release of 10,800 quintals as held by him. I find force in said submission of the learned senior counsel. Now that, this Court is of the view, that the said order of confiscation dated 27.07.2009 passed by the respondent is without reference to the reports furnished by the committees constituted by himself on 30.05.2009 and 03.07.2009, the said order is liable to be set aside. As the respondent agreed that the petitioner’s mill is having capacity of three tonnes per hour of preferred rice for which, the maximum stock limit is 10,800 quintals, the respondent is hereby directed to release the said stock of 10,800 quintals of paddy forthwith without insisting upon any security. In so far as the balance stock is concerned, the respondent may hold an enquiry again as provided for under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, particularly, keeping in mind the reports dated 30.05.2009 and 03.07.2009, the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 25.11.2008 and also the milling capacity of the petitioner. It is further directed that the said proceedings initiated under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act shall be decided at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the balance stock i.e., over and above 10,800 quintals of paddy shall not be sold. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th August, 2009 AMD/KSH