IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.441 of 2011 Between: Smt. V. Zijiya Bai ..... Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.441 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 14.10.2010, whereby respondent No.1 has directed disposal of the seized stock of 830 liters of blue dyed kerosene oil, 45 kgs of red gram dall, 10 kgs of PDS rice and 15½ kgs of sugar under public distribution system and remit the sale proceeds. He further directed to dispose of the remaining seized stock of 3.76 quintals of Sonamasuri rice, 3 empty iron drums, 9 empty plastic cans and weighment stones by public auction. A perusal of the record shows that the variation in PDS rice is – 18 kgs as against 61.63 quintals. Similarly, the variation in sugar is - 55 kgs as against 2.09 quintals, red gram dall is +45 kgs as against 2.13 quintals and kerosene oil is +108 liters against 1050 liters. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the variations are very negligible and the same are within the permissible limits and that therefore the direction to dispose of the entire stock under public distribution system is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s authorization is intact and that he can as well distribute the said stock through his shop. Since the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to render a conclusive finding on the above submission of the learned counsel. However, prima facie, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the variations are too negligible and they appear to be within the permissible limits. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s authorization is stated to be subsisting, in the interests of justice, the seized stock along with weighment stones and empty cans shall be released to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for their value. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to release the seized stock along with weighment stones and empty cans on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for their value. Such release shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.549 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.01.2011 ES