IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3608 of 2008 Between: B.V. Satish Reddy S/o. B. Muni Reddy R/o. Gajjahali Village, Holgunda Mandal, Adoni, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Kurnool District. 2 The Mandal Agriculture Officer Kurnool District. 3 The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool District. 4 The Business Manager, District Cooperative Marketing Society, Kurnool District. 5 The Station House Officer Talluka Police Station, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri U. Suman Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP 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 820 bags of Godavari chemical fertilizers from lorries bearing No. AP 21W 5888 and AP 21 W 4888 as illegal. The petitioner claims to have purchased the above-mentioned stock, along with other farmers of Gajjahalli Village of Holgunda Mandal, Kurnool District, for being used for their agricultural operations. The said stock of fertilizers, which was purchased at Nandyal and being transported in two lorries to Gajjahalli Village, was intercepted on 19.01.2008 at about 08.00 p.m., by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The stock was seized and handed over to Avanthi Ware Housing Services Limited, Bellari Road, Kurnool for safe custody, on 20.01.2008. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated and respondent No.1, by his proceedings dated 29.01.2008, directed the Business Manager, District Cooperative Marketing Society, Kurnool to take possession of the seized stock of chemical fertilizers from the custodian, dispose of the same to the genuine farmers as per MRP pending finalization of the case and remit the sale proceeds in Government Treasury to the head of Account 8443 Revenue Deposits and submit sale particulars with original challan within a fortnight. At the haring, Sri U. Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of respondent No.1 directing sale of the seized fertilizers is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that the petitioner and other villagers purchased the fertilizers in Nandyal on account of the acute shortage of fertilizers in their area and while the same was being transported in two lorries, they were seized. He further submitted that if the said seized stock is permitted to be sold pending finalization of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A perusal of the panchnama, under which the fertilizers stock was seized, shows that one Sri Vakkalagadda Lakshmikanth, S/o Bhaskar Rao has been allegedly transporting the fertilizers from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka State contrary to the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4(c) of the Fertilizers (Movement Control) Order, 1973. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seized property belongs to the petitioner and some other agriculturists, the petitioner failed to give the details of the other agriculturists, who allegedly purchased the said stock along with him. The petitioner also failed to give any details of the shops from which and the prices at which the stock was purchased. He did not give any reason as to why the other agriculturists, who are claimed to have purchased the stock along with him, have not joined him in filing this writ petition. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to accept the ipsi dixit of the petitioner that the seized stock belongs to him and other agriculturists of Gajjahalli village, at this stage. Whether the claim of the petitioner is correct or not is required to be considered by respondent No.1 in the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Under Section 6-A(2), respondent No.1 is empowered to order for sale of the seized commodities and the impugned order, by which such the sale is ordered, shows that having regard to the fact that there is scarcity of fertilizers, the same was directed to be sold to the genuine farmers at the MRP and remit the sale proceeds in Government Treasury. I do not, therefore, find any illegality in the said order of respondent No.1. If the petitioner is able to establish before respondent No.1 that there was no violation in the transportation of the stock, he along with other alleged owners of the stock would be entitled to the payment of the price fetched by the sale of the fertilizers. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 4706 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) March 24, 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}