IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13954 of 2009 Between: M/s. Prasanna Lakshmi Rice Stores Reptd. by its Proprietor, V. Satyavathi, Door No. 27-1-6, District Court Centre, N.R. Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector West Godavari District Eluru. 2 The District Civil Supplies Officer Eluru West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar Gopalapuram Mandal Gopalapuram, West Godavari District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that its application for release of seized stock was not considered before respondent No.1 passed order directing sale of the seized stock. The petitioner filed affidavit of its counsel Sri Narukulla Krishna Murthy, wherein he stated that he filed application for release of the seized stock before respondent No.1 on 18.06.2009. It is also stated in his affidavit that there is no practice of giving acknowledgment in the Office of respondent No.1 evincing receipt of such applications. In the light of the said affidavit, this Court adjourned the case to enable the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to seek instructions from the respondents on the claim of the counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before respondent No.1 on the above mentioned claim. Today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that it was a fact that the application for release of stock was presented in the Office of respondent No.1 on behalf of the petitioner, but it was not placed before respondent No.1, before the impugned order was passed by him. Inasmuch as the fact of the petitioner filing application for release is admitted, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the lapse, if any on the part of the Office of respondent No.1 for not placing the application before him. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 directing sale of the seized commodities without considering the petitioner’s application for release of seized stock cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order, passed by respondent No.1, impugned in this writ petition is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application in accordance with law, in the light of the material, if any placed by the petitioner, before taking a decision on the disposal of the seized stock. Before parting with this case, I deem it appropriate to observe that the practice of receiving applications without proper acknowledgments cannot be appreciated. Respondent No.1 is a statutory authority, which is charged with the responsibility of entertaining the applications from the aggrieved parties under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). The powers exercised by him under Section 6-A of the Act are quasi judicial in nature. Therefore, a proper procedure is required to be evolved to entertain and dispose of the applications, while exercising such powers under Section 6-A of the Act. The Director and Commissioner of Civil Supplies of Andhra Pradesh is directed to issue appropriate instructions to all the Collectors exercising the powers under Section 6-A of the Act laying down the proper procedure for receiving and disposing of the applications under Section 6-A of the Act. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th July, 2009 vrn