HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23485 of 2010 Date 23.09.2010 Between: Thallada Praveen and another. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, Warangal District & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners :Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos:1 to 4 : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23485 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 27.08.2010 in E.C.A.C.No.76 of 2010 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to sell the seized stocks, namely, 82.60 quintals of BPT paddy and 100 quintals of rice (I.R. 64). I have heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. I have also perused the record. The above-mentioned stocks were seized by the Grain Purchasing Assistant, Warangal, along with Deputy Tahsildars (CS) Hasanparthy, Cherial, Narsampet, when they were being transported through lorry bearing No. MH 29T 0078 at 2.30 A.M. on 10.08.2010. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. While issuing a show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order directing interim disposal. While giving elaborate reasons, respondent No.1, in her order, has opined that the seized stock is subject to natural and speedy decay and that it is also expedient in public interest to dispose of the stock. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has directed the stocks to be sold in open auction inviting licenced food grain dealers and to deposit the sale proceeds thereof. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 is not justified in directing sale of the seized stock in open auction and, as such a sale to be held by the officials of the Civil Supplies Department would not fetch proper price. In my opinion, respondent No.1, under Section 6-A(2) of the Act, is vested with the power to direct disposal of the stocks which were seized on serious allegations pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act if he/she is satisfied that the stock seized is subject to natural and speedy decay or that it is expedient in public interest to do so. This Court while exercising jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be inclined to examine the decision of respondent No.1 on merits except considering whether the decision making process undertaken by respondent No.1 suffers from any illegality or arbitrariness. In my opinion, no such arbitrariness or illegality visits the impugned order. However, having regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the sale of the seized stock in public auction among the licenced food grain dealers would not fetch proper price, I am inclined to modify the order of respondent No.1 by directing release of the seized stock to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bank guarantee for the market value of the stock as assessed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall assess the market value within two weeks from today and within two weeks thereafter, the petitioners shall furnish the bank guarantee. Until the expiry of the above-mentioned period, respondent No.1 shall not sell the seized stock. If the petitioners furnish the bank guarantee within the stipulated time, the stock shall be released to them, which will be subject to the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Conversely, if the petitioners fail to furnish such bank guarantee, it shall be open to respondent No.1 to enforce the impugned order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.30062 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22.09.2010 usd