IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15251 of 2009 Between: Alagandula Ashok. … Petitioner And: The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) Karimnagar District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Venu Madhav. 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 Nil-7-2009 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he directed disposal of BPT super fine rice seized from the petitioner, allegedly worth about Rs.1,26,250/-, 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 his application for release of the seized stock, before passing the impugned order. In view of this plea of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of his application, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies was directed to seek instructions from the respondents whether the petitioner submitted his application for release of the seized stock 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 Nil-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:29-7-2009 KVNI/MNR