IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24649 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Vasavi Trades, rep. by its Proprietor I.Satyanarayana S/o.I.C.Siddaiah Setty R/o.13-4-287, B-Avilala Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor (CS), Chittoor District. 2 The Assistant Supply Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor 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 issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the proceedings No.D1/1474/2008 dated 03.11.2008 rejecting the claim petition ﬁled by the petitioner to release the stocks and in turn directing to sell the same stock of total 445.25 qts of rice at rythu Bazaar is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is without any power or authority to do so and consequently direct the respondents to release the rice bags (1781) 445.25 qts. seized on 20.10.2008 by the respondent No.2 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24649 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the order of the 1st respondent Collector (Civil Supplies), dated 3.11.2008 rejecting the request of the petitioner for release of 445.25 quintals of rice seized on 20.10.2008 and directing sale of the same as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Though it is vehemently contended that the seizure itself is arbitrary and illegal and the allegations against the petitioner are false and without basis since it is a matter for enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘E.C. Act, 1955’) pending before the 1st respondent, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits. However, I ﬁnd force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned action of the 1st respondent in directing sale of the seized stock is unwarranted. Instead the ends of justice would be met if the enquiry itself is concluded expeditiously. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the enquiry pending on his ﬁle under Section 6-A of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the seized stock shall not be sold. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 10-11-2008 gbs Note: Issue operative portion by wire. B/o gbs