THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22775 of 2011 Date: 11.08.2011 Between: Dasari Satyanarayana … Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22775 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 2. Even though the writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District in proceedings CC.No.77/2011 CSR5, dated 29.7.2011, declining to release the seized stock of the petitioner, having regard to the short relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing, with the consent of both the counsel, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of rice and paddy. On 2.7.2011, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam, inspected the shop of the petitioner and seized the stock of rice under panchanama dated 2.7.2011 on the ground that the petitioner was dealing with the commodities without obtaining any valid licence. He submitted a report in that regard to the 1st respondent for eventual action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”). The 1st respondent has taken cognizance of the said report and initiated proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application dated 5.7.2011 before the 1st respondent seeking to release the seized stock on condition of his furnishing bank guarantee. However, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order declining to release the stock. That is how the petitioner is before Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity so as to attract confiscation under the provisions of the Act. He also contends that if the seized stock of the petitioner is sold even before conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable loss. He, therefore, submits that the 1st respondent be directed to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable time and in the meanwhile not to sell the seized stock. 5. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, since admittedly, an enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act is pending. 6. Indisputably, the stock of the petitioner was seized on 2.7.2011 and the petitioner has submitted an application dated 5.7.2011 seeking release of the stock. It could be seen that considerable time has elapsed eversince then. In matters of this nature, the Statutory authorities are expected to conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a time frame. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in pursuance of the panchanama dated 2.7.2011 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till conclusion of the said enquiry and appropriate orders are passed, the seized stock of the petitioner shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 11.08.2011. NOTE:- Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22775 of 2011 11.08.2011 (Msr)