IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12666 of 2008 Between: Gouri Shankar Modern Rice Mill Chalgal Village Jagtial (M) Karimnagar District Rep.by its Managing Partner S/o.Narsing Rao(Business) Chalgal (V) Jagtial(M) Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector(CS) Karimnagar 2 The District Supply Officer Karimnagar 3 The Food Inspector Jagtial Karimnagar District 4 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance(Enforcement) Karimnagar District 5 The Deputy Tahsildar(CS) Peddapalli,Karimnagar District 6 The Tahsildar Jagital (M) Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ,order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1,2 and 6 not to sell the entire seized ie paddy 6367.88 Quintals Rice 200.90 quintals Broken Rice 140.00 quintals and paddy(under milling) 32.29 quintals pursuant to the interim disposal order passed by the 1st respondent vide G3/648/08 dt.11-6-2008 pending disposal of the 6-A enquiry in respect of the above mentioned entire stocks which were seized by the 2nd respondent on 30-5-2008 from the petitioner Rice Mill by conducting a Panchanama dt.30-5-2008 alleging the violation of the claues 7(a)(2) of A.P Rice Procurement order 1984 which was amended by issuing G.O.M.S No.13 dt.24-3-2008 by duly declaring the interim disposal of order passed by the 1st respondent vide No.G3/648/08 dt.11-6-2008 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act in nothing but arbitrary illegal and contrary to the true intent of Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the control orders made there under and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12666 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The writ petition is directed against an order of the first respondent dated 11-06-2008 whereby and whereunder, in purported exercise of power under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) sale by public auction of the seized quantities of paddy, rice and broken rice has been ordered. Specified quantities of paddy, rice and broken rice were seized from three autos which were transporting these to the petitioner’s rice mill. Thereafter the petitioner’s business premises was also inspected. Alleging that the specified commodities were being transported without obtaining ‘release certificate’ from the Collector (C.S.), Karimnagar and in contravention of Clause-7 (a) 2 of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, the commodities were seized and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated against the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No. 12382 of 2008 questioning the seizure and by way of interim relief sought release of the seized commodities in its favour. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16-06-2008. The order impugned herein was not brought to the notice of this Court presumably as the petitioner was not by then communicated the impugned order. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to expeditiously consider the application of the petitioner for interim release of the seized commodities in its favour and to pass appropriate orders within two weeks. Thereafter the impugned order was communicated to the petitioner. Section 6-A (2) of the Act confers a discretion on the first respondent to order interim disposal of the seized commodities, if such a course of action is either expedient in the public interest or if the seized commodities are subject to speedy and natural decay. Adjudication of the allegations leveled against the trader as to the contravention of the provisions of Control Orders is not such a complex matrix of facts and law as would require interminable deliberation and consideration. Proceedings under Section 6 of the Act initiated against the petitioner could be adjudicated and disposed of with considerable expedition, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks and within six (6) weeks, it is not the case of the respondents as alleged by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, that paddy, broken rice and rice are subject to what could be characterized as speedy and natural decay. Judicial notice can also be taken note of the fact that rice, broken rice and paddy are not subject to a normal process of decay within a period of six (6) weeks. In this legal and factual ambience the discretion exercised by the first respondent in directing by the impugned order the sale of the commodities seized from the petitioner on the ground that they are subjected to natural and speedy decay is an abuse of discretion/an improper exercise of discretion. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed. The first respondent shall expeditiously and in any event within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, pass final orders on the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Act. Appropriate adjudicatory strategies shall be adopted by the first respondent to conform to the time frame directed herein. Needless to state that the petitioner shall co-operate with the first respondent to enable final disposal of the proceedings within the aforesaid time. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has noted this order and shall communicate the same to the first respondent telephonically. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 18-06-2008 Pvks/*