THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No. 652 of 2010 Dated: 6-9-2010 Between: Desu Veeraiah Sons, rep. by its Managing Partners and another ….Appellants And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The writ petitioner, as the appellant, is aggrieved by the substantive rejection of the relief sought in the writ petition vide the order of the learned single Judge dated 24-8-2010. The appellants the dealers in fertilizers. Their business premises was inspected on 10-8-2010 and the stocks verified. The Civil Supplies Department officials noticed that the appellants were selling fertilizers at higher rates than the maximum retail price (MRP), by altering the prices with stencils. According to the panchanama report, although the original MRP was mentioned on the price tag, the revised stenciled price was superceded; a huge quantity of fertilizers was stored in the unauthorized godowns and the appellants herein failed to maintain proper registers with specific demarcation in respect of each category of fertilizers. The appellants were therefore alleged to have contravened the provisions of Clauses 3(3) and 7 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the terms and conditions of the licence. Consequently under a panchanama, dated 10-8-2010, 130 Metric tons of Kribhco Urea from godown No.1, 450 metric tons of Iffco Urea from godown No.1, 371 metric tons of Kribhco urea from godown No.2 and 6.5 metric tons of Iffco Urea from godown No.2, all worth Rs.25,13,016/- were seized apart from other fertilizers including Zinc phosphate, Neem powder etc. The total value of the seized stock of fertilizers was valued at Rs.1,66,19,441-00. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. Aggrieved by the seizure, the writ petition was filed. Despite a number of contentions urged, inter alia that there was no violation of the Price Control Order nor the stocks were stored in an unauthorized godowns, the learned single Judge declined grant of the specific relief sought in the writ petition on the ground that an inspecting report had already been furnished and the correctness or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the appellants ought not to be gone into in the writ petition. We find no error in such exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge. However, the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would state that the quantities of commodity i.e., Zinc Phosphate and other fertilizers would diminish in value if stored during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners is willing to furnish a bank guarantee for the entire value of the goods seized, namely Rs.1,66,19,441-00 and furnish an undertaking to keep the bank guarantee operative until the conclusion of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The learned Govt. Pleader for Cooperation does not resist this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, made during the admission hearing of the writ appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Govt. Pleader for Cooperation for the respondents, directing the respondents to release the stocks of the several varieties of fertilizers and other commodities seized from the godowns of the appellants under the panchanama dated 10-8-2010, on the condition of the appellants furnishing a bank guarantee drawn on a nationalized bank for Rs.1,66,19,441-00, valid for a period of one year in the initial instance and with further written undertaking that the bank guarantee will be renewed till conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The bank guarantee shall be furnished to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent shall, as directed by the learned single Judge, dispose of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pass orders and communicate the same to the petitioners, within a period of six months, as already directed. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 6th September, 2010 GRR