IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25328 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Mohd. Multani S/o. Md. Aziz …. Petitioner AND The Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.25328 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Mohd. Multani seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the seizure of lorry bearing No. KA 32A 0201 along with food grains by the respondents from the business premises of M/s. Narayanakhed Hyderabad transport Company, D.No.5-2-200/A-8, Unit No.4, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the seized lorry, food grains and oils. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of lorry bearing No.KA 32A 0201 and that he is doing business of M/s. Narayankhed Hyderabad Transport Company and that the Regional Transport Authority, Medak has issued Goods Carriage Permit on 31-5-2008. It is further submitted that on 16-11-2009 at about 2-00 PM, respondent No.2 - the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer and respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer have inspected the business premises of the petitioner and seized the lorry and 92 bags of PDS Rice, other food grains, oil Cartons etc., worth Rs.1,04,250/-, under a panchanama and registered a case under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and thereafter, respondent No.3 issued notification of seizure of goods stating that the goods are not supported by any valid document. 3. It is further contended that immediately after the incident, the petitioner approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and requested for release of the lorry including goods but the respondents did not consider his request. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Civil Supplies and Commercial Tax. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry and he is eking out his livelihood by hiring the said lorry and that he is prepared to furnish the bank guarantee, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the seized lorry on condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to release the seized lorry on condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The petitioner is hereby directed that on release of the lorry in his favour, he shall give an undertaking that he will not alienate the said lorry during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and shall produce the lorry as and when required during the pendency of the said proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J November 20, 2009. KTL