IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11517 of 2009 Between: M/s. Ashirwad Foods, Rep.by its Prop. Nitish Goeal, S/o. Suresh Goeal, R/o. 1-10-228/15/A, Nagarjuna Colony, Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Asst. Supply Officer RR East Division, R.R District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Collector (CS) Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare seizure of 202.25 Quintals of rice and 45.50 Quintals of broken rice as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. A search was conducted on the business premises of the petitioner on 09-06-2009 wherein he did not produce Food Grain License and Stock Registers. It is stated in the mediators report that the petitioner informed the Inspecting Officers that he applied for Food Grain Dealer’s license but he failed to produce any acknowledgment in token thereof. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that as the requirement of obtaining license was introduced in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short “the 1982 Order”) for the first time, which was published in the Gazette on 18-08- 2008, the petitioner made his application to the licensing authority and obtained a license, which is valid up to 31-03-2009, and that he filed an application for its renewal. The petitioner has not filed any proof of his application for renewal of license. Therefore, prima facie, I do not find any illegality in seizing the food grains, which were stored without a license under the 2008 Order. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the seizure. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from approaching respondent No.2 with appropriate application for either stay of sale or release of the food grains. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14823 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 12th June, 2009 Note: Furnish CC in three days. B/o lur