IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14541 of 2009 Between: Kamal Kumar, S/o. Jayaprakashji, R/o. Plot No. 129, Shapoornagar, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Supply Officer (Enforcement) Urban, Rural, Senior C.I. Team, O/o. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad 2 The Collector (CS) Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY FOR MR.THIMMADI SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare seizure of 186 quintals of sugar under Panchanama, dated 16-07-2009, as null and void. This Writ Petition is filed on the premise that ‘Sugar’ is not included as a food item under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Order’). However, this plea of the petitioner is, evidently, incorrect in view of G.O.Ms.No.30, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 08-08-2008, by which the 2008 Order was amended by including ‘Sugar’ under item No.(iv) in sub-clause G of Clause 2 thereof. Another item viz., Item No.10 was added to sub-clause K of Clause 2 by separately defining a ‘Dealer in Sugar’ as a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of Sugar in quantities of five quintals or more at any one time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seizure of 186 quintals of Sugar from the petitioner’s godown, which was admittedly stored without a license, is illegal. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s application for release of seized Sugar is pending before respondent No.2. In view of the same, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.19066 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27th July, 2009 Note: Furnish CC in a week. B/o lur