IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16369 of 2009 Between: M/s. Madeti Venkata Rama Seshu, Rep. by its Proprietor, Madeti Venkata Rama Seshu, S/o. Ram Nageswara Rao, Aged 40 years, Door No. 6-13-41, Nidavole, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, West Godavari District. Eluru. 3 The District Civil Supplies Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru. 4 The Tahsildar, Nidadavle Mandal, Nidadavole, West Godavari 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent authority in issung proceedings in Roc.CS-I/82/ECA/2009, dated 6-8-2009 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and against the Principles of Natural Justice and in vioaltion of Articles 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the seized stock of 173.90 quintals of Sugar belonging to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.16369 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 The petitioner is having all valid licences issued under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Control Order, 2008 to carry on business in rice and pulses. On 21.07.2009, the third respondent along with mediators visited the business premises of the petitioner and seized the stocks under the cover of mediators report on the ground that the petitioner was not having a valid licence to do business. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of the report furnished by the third respondent, the second respondent initiated proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner approached the second respondent and filed an application on 23.7.2009 requesting him to release the stocks, but, however, the same was rejected. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Collector, the authorities are contemplating to sell the seized stocks in a public auction. Hence this Writ Petition. 2 Heard both sides. 3 Now that the proceedings initiated under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act are very much pending before the second respondent, this court is of the view that without expressing any view can direct the second respondent to complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders in the said proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, inasmuch as the petitioner has come forward stating that he is prepared to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the worth of the seized commodities, this court is of the view that instead of keeping the stocks during the pendency of the proceedings initiated under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act the same may be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.14,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the second respondent. 4 With the above observations this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------ 10.08.2009 C.C. in two days B/o kvsn