IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24349 of 2010 Between: M/s. Rajya Lakshmi Trading Company, Kesamudram Village & Mandal, Warangal District & another. ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal, Warangal District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24349 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 23.09.2010 in E.C.A.C.No.99 of 2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has directed respondent No.3 to sell the stocks of 121.20 quintals of Redgram, 85.56 quintals of Till and 6 quintals of Groundnut seized from the petitioners’ custody. I have heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Petitioners are the food grain dealers holding a licence. On 09.09.2010, respondent No.2 has inspected their shop and seized the abovementioned quantities of food grains on the ground that there are certain variations between the stock register and ground balance. On the report submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). While issuing show cause notice under Section 6B of the Act, on the same day, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, whereby he directed respondent No.3 to dispose of the seized stock by way of open auction. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except the allegation that there are certain variations in the stock, the petitioners are not attributed with any serious malpractices. The learned counsel further submitted that mere variations by a food grain dealer while conducting the business cannot constitute a ground for seizure or confiscation of the stock. In my opinion, the question whether the petitioners have committed any violation of the provisions of the Act or the control orders needs to be adjudicated in the pending proceedings before respondent No.1. However, having regard to the fact that the only ground on which the seizure has taken place was existence of variations in the stock, I am of the opinion that sale of the seized food grains, pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6A, would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioners. Instead of selling the seized stock, interests of justice would be served if the stocks are preserved without being sold, pending the proceedings before respondent No.1. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified by directing the respondents not to sell the seized stock till the disposal of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31173 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.09.2010 ES