THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.15979 of 2011 Date: 13.06.2011 Between: Shaik Shaffi … Petitioner and The Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District, Ongole and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.15979 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. During the course of hearing, both the counsel submit that in similar circumstances, this Court directed for release of the vehicles seized under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”) on condition of furnishing immovable property security by deposit of title deeds. 3. The petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing registration No.AP 26W 5672. On 4.5.2011, the said vehicle was seized by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Kandukur, Prakasam District, and the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively, under a panchanama dated 4.5.2011, alleging that the rice meant for public distribution system was being carried clandestinely. Based on a report submitted in that regard, the 1st respondent-District Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District, initiated action under Section 6-A of the Act. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent by filing an application dated 13.5.2011 seeking release of the said stock. As the 1st respondent did not respond to the said application, apprehending that the vehicle would be sold pending enquiry, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge about the commission of the offence alleged against him and the driver innocently agreed to transport the rice without having any knowledge. The learned counsel also submits that even in the extreme case of confiscation, the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, will only be liable to pay fine not exceeding the market price of the seized commodities. 5. Whether or not the rice was being transported with the knowledge of the petitioner and whether the petitioner is liable for punishment are all the issues which have to be decided by the 1st respondent as per the provisions of the Act. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and ultimately, even if the petitioner is found to be guilty of the offence, the authority has the discretion to impose the fine in lieu of confiscation. 7. Having regard to the same and also having regard to the similar orders of this Court, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the lorry bearing No.AP 26W 5672 in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing an immovable property security for the value of the rice seized from the vehicle by deposit of title deeds without there being necessity of registration, which shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 13.06.2011. NOTE:- Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.15979 of 2011 13.06.2011 (Msr)