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.11494 of 2009 Between: M/s.Ashirward Trading Co Rep.by its Prop.Ramesh Chand Goel, S/o. Jagesh Prasad, 306/5, Subashnagar, Nagarjuna Colony Kushaiguda, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Asst.Supply Officer Civil Supplies R.R District at Lakdikapool,Hyderabad 2 The 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 127.25 quintals of rice from the petitioner’s possession as illegal. 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 and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be a trader in food grains. On 09-06-2009, respondent No.1 inspected premises bearing No.305/5, Subash Nagar, Kushaiguda, wherein he found 127.25 quintals of rice and seized the same under a Panchanama. In the said Panchanama, it is stated that when Sri Ramesh Chand Goel, the Proprietor of the petitioner, was asked to explain about the said storage, he stated that he intended to open a rice store under the name and style of ‘Ashirvad Trading Company’ and that he has not yet commenced the business and therefore, he has not obtained Food Grain Dealer’s license so far. As the petitioner did not have the license to store the rice and carry on the business, the said stock was seized which is presently in the custody of the respondents. Questioning the said seizure, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the petitioner was not found doing business, the respondents are not justified in seizing the rice on the ground that he does not hold Food Grain Dealer’s license. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner has not obtained license under the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short ‘the 1982 Order’), as envisaged in Clause 3 of the A.P.Prevention of Hoardings of Food Grains Order, 1973 (for short ‘the 1973 Order’), and therefore, seizure of rice from his premises does not suffer from any illegality. Clause 3 of the 1982 Order reads as under: “3. Licensing of dealers:- [(1)] No person shall carry on business as a dealer or a commission agent dealing in paddy except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued in this behalf by the licensing authority : Provided that a license obtained under any of the relevant licensing Orders in force on the date of coming into force of this Order shall be valid till the date of its expiry and a fresh license shall be obtained under this Order before expiry of the date of such license; [Provided further that bulk consumers of sugar as defined in sub-clause (O) of Clause 2 who store more than five quintals of sugar at any one time shall also be required to obtain licences under this order]. [(2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores in quantity of 5 (five) quintals or more of Sugar, 20 (twenty) quintals or more of any one of the foodgrains or 50 (fifty) quintals or more of all foodgrains taken together more than 10 (ten) quintals of any one or more of pulses put together, more than 5 (five) quintals of any one or more of edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oil or more than 30 (thirty) quintals of any one or more of oil seeds including groundnut in shell, [xxx] put together, at any one time, shall unless the contrary is proved be deemed to be carrying on business as a dealer or a commission agent dealing in paddy, under this order]. On the petitioner’s own showing, he did not obtain Food Grain Dealer’s license, as envisaged under the extant Control Order. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the seizure of the rice and the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of Mandamus to declare the said seizure as illegal. It may, however, be added that the petitioner is entitled to approach respondent No.2 with necessary application, either for release of the stock or stay of sale, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations contained in this order are made only for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition and this order shall not influence respondent No.1 while disposing of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14796 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 12th June, 2008 LUR