IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19403 OF 2009 BETWEEN: M. Yadav Reddy S/o. Veera Reddy …. Petitioner AND The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, Warangal District and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19403 OF 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the seizure of 25 quintals of rice in 50 bags, each containing 50 KGs, from his house on 19-08-2009, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the same. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist owning an extent of Acs.5.00 of wetland in Survey Nos.161, 139 and 167/H of Rangapur village, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal District. He raised paddy and after sale, stored about 25 quintals of rice in 50 bags, each containing 50 KGs. On 19-08-2009, the Mandal Revenue Inspector – respondent No.2, visited the residence of the petitioner and seized the said stock alleging that the storage of rice is in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘Control Order’) and registered a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Nallabelli Mandal, Warangal District -respondent No.3 reported the matter to the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal District – respondent No.1 and the same is under challenge in this Writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Prabhakara Rao, while drawing my attention to Clause 17 of the Control Order, submitted that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction whatsoever because he is not one of those officers mentioned in Clause 17. It is his further submission that the petitioner, as an agriculturist, raised paddy and after harvesting the same, stored it in his residential premises, which cannot be said to be illegal as it is raised by him, but the respondents illegally seized the same alleging that the storage of the rice is in contravention of the Control Order. 5. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the matter is before respondent No.1 and he will look into the said aspect. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and since the prayer itself is for a direction to the respondents to not to sell the stocks seized from the petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry, this Writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, with a direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry initiated under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the stocks seized form the petitioner, shall not be sold by way of public auction. No order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J September 11, 2009. KTL/KVSN