HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19953 of 2010 Dated: 13-08-2010 Between: Smt. B. Umadevi & another. … Petitioners And The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Civil Supplies, Anantapur & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19953 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the seizure of 60 bags of groundnut seeds, each 30 Kg, by the 2nd respondent and the further orders, dated 23rd of July 2010, passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings Roc.No.B6/1853/2010, as illegal and arbitrary. The Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri, has made an inspection in the premises bearing Door No.9/463-1B on 02.07.2010 and having found that 60 bags of groundnut subsidized seeds are stored unauthorisedly in the said premises, the said commodity was seized on the ground that such storage was in violation of the Seed (Control) Order, 1983, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On submitting the seizure report, the 1st respondent, by order dated 23rd of July 2010, passed in proceedings Roc.No.B6/1853/2010, ordered for sale of the seized commodity in public auction and further recorded a finding that storage of said seed for a longer time will spoil its quality. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the seeds, which were seized by the officials, were purchased by a number of farmers for their agricultural purposes and have stored the same in the premises in question, for transportation to their native villages. With regard to the allegation levelled against the petitioner that the said subsidized groundnut seed was stocked unauthorisedly, it is a matter for inquiry. As much as the seized commodity is ordered to be sold by way of public auction, if the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, he will get back the full value of the commodity. Whether the storage is by the farmers or not, is a matter to be examined by the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to declare the seizure itself as illegal, so as to set aside the order, dated 23rd of July 2010, passed by the 1st respondent in Roc.No.B6/1853/2010. However, since the seizure report is already submitted to the competent authority, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 1st respondent to complete the 6-A proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The sale proceeds pursuant to the sale of seeds in the open auction, shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in 6-A proceedings. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th August 2010 ajr