HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21038 of 2010 Date : 27.08.2010 Between : B. Kishan. …..Petitioners And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21038 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 17th August 2010, issued in File No.F2/1365/2010, by the 1st respondent-District Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, by which, he has ordered to sell the stocks seized from the petitioner’s rice mill i.e. 5,740.40 quintals of paddy, 411.25 quintals of rice and 19.00 quintals of broken rice, and to deposit the sale proceeds in revenue deposits, pending passing of final orders under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner is a rice miller. On 6th August 2010, when the rice meant for public distribution system was being unloaded from a van infront of the petitioner’s rice mill, the PDS rice of 70 quintals was seized. Subsequently, on 7th August 2010, the officials have also inspected the mill premises of the petitioner and verified the stock register with the physically available stock. On the ground that there were variations in stocks when the book balances were compared with the ground balances, the entire available quantities of 5740.40 quintals of paddy, 411.25 quintals of raw rice and 19.00 quintals of broken rice were seized. Consequent to the seizure report submitted by the Inspecting Officials, the 1st respondent-District Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and a show cause notice, dated 17.08.2010, was issued to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated to the Government. On the same day i.e. on 17.08.2010, a separate order is passed by the 1st respondent-Collector, in File No.F2/1365/2010, directing sale of the seized stocks. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that there are no variations in stocks and that proper verification was not made by the inspecting officials at the time of inspection. It is further submitted that in any event, the District Collector ought not to have ordered for disposal of stocks without even giving time to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of A.Shiva Reddy Vs. District Collector, Kurnool[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for respondents, that pursuant to the seizure report, proceedings were already initiated by issuing show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, on 17th August 2010, and appropriate final orders will be passed as expeditiously as possible. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the order of disposal is passed without notice to him, but in this case, it is to be noticed that even according to the petitioner, pursuant to receipt of notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, he has also filed explanation and the matter is posted to 31st of August 2010, for inquiry. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has already filed his explanation pursuant to the notice under Section 6-A(2) of the Act, without going into the validity of the order, dated 17th August 2010, by which, the 1st respondent has ordered for disposal of the seized stocks, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the 6-A proceedings and pass appropriate final orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be a further direction to the respondents not to sell the paddy, raw rice and broken rice seized from the petitioner’s mill premises. However, it is made clear that with regard to PDS rice, it is open for the respondents to sell the same through public distribution system. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th August 2010 ajr [1] 2008(6) ALD 1