IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3581 of 2008 Between: M/s. Saibaba Traders, rep., by its Proprietor, M. Srinivasa Rao, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector camp at Vijayawada, Krishna District, Machilipatnam & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Gangarami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3581 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing 933.96 quintals of raw rice and 434 kgs of paddy from the petitioner, as illegal. Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Though time was taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for filing counter-affidavit and production of record on 27.03.2008 and 03.04.2008, neither counter-affidavit is filed nor record has been produced. The abovementioned stock was seized on 14.06.2007 by respondent No.2 and the vigilance and enforcement officer when the same was being transported at Kanaka Durga Varathi, Vijayawada. The petitioner claims that the said stock was purchased by it in a public auction held on 25.05.2007 by respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, that the person-in- charge, MLS Godown, Chimakurty handed over the said stock to it subsequently and on 14.06.2007 when the same was being transported, seizure has taken place. In support of its claim that the seized stock was purchased by it in the auction held by the Civil Supplies Department, it filed a copy of letter dated 30.05.2007 addressed by respondent No.2 to the person-in-charge, MLS Gowdown, Chimakurty and also a purported report of the District Supply Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole, to the Food Inspector, Ongole in letter dated 30.05.2007 addressed by respondent No.2 to the person-in-charge, MLS Godown, Chimakurty. It is stated that the stock of 93830 kgs of rice was seized from the rice mill in Santhanuthalapadu and crime No.36 of 2006 was registered, that by judgment dated 29.01.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, directed the police and the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned to conduct public auction and that in the auction conducted on 25.05.2007 the petitioner offered the highest bid amount of Rs.7,50,000/- and respondent No.2 therefore requested the person-in-charge, MLS Godown, Chimakurty to deliver the stock of 1965 bags of rice and 6 bags of paddy to the petitioner through lorry weighment receipts bearing Nos.78, 79, 88, 89, 99 and 109 dated 14.04.2006. The report said to have been submitted by the Food Inspector of Ongole to the District Supply Officer, Prakasam, Ongole, an unsigned copy of which is filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner produced truck chits in token of transporting the seized stocks from MLS point and that the District Supply Officer, Krishna may be informed that it is a fact that Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Proprietor of the petitioner has purchased the raw rice from the enforcement officer in public auction. Though a perusal of the said report shows that no definite information is given by the Food Inspector, Ongole as to whether the stock, which was seized from the petitioner’s custody was the same stock, which was purchased by the petitioner in public auction, from the very fact that the petitioner purchased rice in the auction held on 25.05.2007 gives rise to a reasonable presumption that the same stock, which was purchased by the petitioner in the auction may have been intercepted and seized when it was being transported. Unfortunately, the respondents failed to file any counter-affidavit and produce the record in spite of the directions given by this Court. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that the stock seized from the petitioner is the same stock, which was purchased by it in the public auction. I may, however, hasten to add that this opinion of the Court cannot be taken as the final conclusion and without being influenced by the same, the respondents shall dispose of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) said to have been initiated. In view of the abovementioned prima facie finding of this Court that the seized stocks were purchased by the petitioner in the public auction and in the absence of any counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the respondents are directed to release the seized stock to the petitioner subject to the condition that it shall furnish immovable property securities to the satisfaction of respondent No.1 for the value of the seized stock. The release of the stock shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by respondent No.1 in the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4670 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.04.2008 ES