IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.15333 of 2008 Between: Sri Mohd Ghouse S/o.Mohd Qutubuddin Agapura,Nampally Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Collector (Civil Supplies) Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction or an order or direction or an order or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider representation dt.05-07-2008 and to release petitioner's lorry bearing No.AP9U 5654 by taking 3rd party property security in the place of Bank Guarantee. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.SHASHIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.15333 of 2008 Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. On 31.05.2005 a load of Bengal gram dhal, being transported in a lorry bearing Registration No.AP 9U 5654 claimed to be belonging to the writ petitioner, was intercepted. The lorry and the consignment were seized and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 initiated on the ground that the transportation of the Bengal gram dhal was in transgression of the Andhra Pradesh Pulses (licensing & Storage) Regulation 2007. Petitioner applied to the respondent for release of the lorry pending 6-A proceedings. By the order contained in the Memo dated 27.06.2008, respondent directed interim release of the lorry in favour of the petitioner/owner, on his furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.3,05,970/- (being the assessed value of the lorry), and on ﬁling an aﬃdavit undertaking that the lorry will not be alienated till the disposal of the case. A similar order was passed by the respondent in respect of another lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TT 3425 belonging to another, not germane to this writ petition. Unable to furnish the bank guarantee for Rs.3,05,970/-, petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 05.07.2008 undertaking to furnish third party security, such as house property, apart from furnishing an aﬃdavit, as directed. Thereafter, petitioner ﬁled this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to release the lorry by accepting third party security. Appropriateness of the conditionalities to be imposed while ordering interim release of the custody of a seized receptacle or vehicle is within the domain of the respondent. In the absence of perversity in the exercise of discretion, this Court has no role to play under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner is however, at liberty to pursue the respondent to alter the conditionalities and accept third party security, but that is in the realm of the discretion of the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15.07.2008 within the spectrum of the respondent’s discretion and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and in any event, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (Justice Goda Raghuram) 27th August 2008 sh