IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16623 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Traders, Rep. by its Prop. K.Srinivas S/o. V\Butchaiah R/o. Seriguda, Ibramhimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 R.Shiva Leela W/o. R.ramanadham R/o. Prabhatnagar, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Collector ( CS) Ranga Reddy District at Laksikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Asst. Supply Oficer, ( enforcement ) ( Urban ) Collectorate Ranga Reddy, Laksikapool, Hyerabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 any writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent in 6-A case No. A7/7\490/2009 dated 6-8-2009 is null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16623 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in 6-A Case No.A7/490/2009 dated 06.08.2009, as null and void. The 1st petitioner is having valid licence to carry on business in rice and he sold 100 quintals of rice to Narayana College and the same was transported in the 2nd petitioner lorry bearing No. ATT 6003 with valid documents. While so, on 09.06.2009, the 2nd respondent along with staff surprised the lorry and seized the said lorry along with rice under cover of panchanama on the ground that the petitioners were not having valid documents. Questioning the said seizure, the petitioners filed W.P.No.12026 of 2009 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition, by order dated 19.06.2009, directing the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioners dated 10.06.2009 for release of the seized rice and lorry. Pursuant to the said order, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice to the driver of the lorry on 20.06.2009 calling for his explanation to show cause as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated and thereafter the 1st respondent, passed an order dated 06.08.2009 confiscating the seized stock in favour of the Government under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and also imposed penalty of 50% on the driver of the lorry. Hence the writ petition. Heard both sides. Apparently, the notice issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act is only to the driver of the lorry, but not to the owner of the stocks or to the owner of the lorry. It is the duty of the 1st respondent to issue notice to the owner of the stocks as well as to the owner of the vehicle. As the notice issued by the 1st respondent is only to the driver of the vehicle, this Court is of the view that the notice issued to the driver of the vehicle as well as the impugned order dated 06.08.2009 issued by the 1st respondent are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The 1st respondent is at liberty to issue notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act to the petitioners herein i.e., owner of the seized stocks and the owner of the lorry bearing No. ATT 6003. Further, the respondents are directed to release the lorry bearing No.ATT 6003 in favour of the 2nd petitioner on condition of her furnishing bank guarantee in a sum of Rs.One Lakh to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. The proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the 1st respondent shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the seized stock shall not be sold. No order as to costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17-08-2009 Gsn.