IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15077 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sri Krishna and Company, Jyothi Nagar, N.T.P.C., Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, reptd., by its Managing Partner-Nalla Ashok. … Petitioner And: The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Karimnagar and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao. Counsel for the Respondents AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 17-7-2009 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he directed disposal of various commodities seized from the petitioner, such as rice and pulses of different varieties, allegedly worth about Rs.8,25,204/-, in public auction. For the disposal of the Writ Petition, the facts in detail need not be recorded. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 did not consider its application for release of the seized commodities, before passing the impugned order. In view of this plea of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of its application, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies was directed to seek instructions from the respondents whether the petitioner submitted its application for release of the seized commodities before the impugned order was passed. On instructions she submitted that such an application was in fact filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no reference to the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock. The orders passed by respondent No.1, under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), are quasi- judicial in nature and as they vitally affect the rights and interests of the parties, it is incumbent upon him to consider the applications, if any made, before passing the orders. Since the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock was not considered by respondent No.1, before passing the impugned order, the said order cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, order dated 17-7-2009 passed by respondent No.1, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, on merits, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:28 -7-2009 MNR