THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16973 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a dealer in food grains, has questioned the notice bearing Ref.V.10/CS/611/10, dated 09.06.2010 and also seizure of stock. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s.Ganesh Traders and he is doing business of selling rice in wholesale and retail. It is stated that his business premises was inspected and a search was conducted. On the ground that he has violated certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Order’), rice and broken rice for the quantities, which are mentioned in the show cause notice, were seized. It is his case that as there is no basis for registering the case against him under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), the very seizure of the aforesaid commodities from his shop is illegal. It is submitted that the seized stock is a perishable item and that though the seizure was effected as early as on 05.06.2010, no orders have been passed for interim disposal of the seized stock. It is submitted that for the show cause notice, dated 09.06.2010, the petitioner filed explanation on 15.06.2010, but no orders have been passed thereon. When the matter came up for hearing on 16.07.2010, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to ascertain whether any order is passed for interim disposal of the seized stock as much as it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized stock is the perishable item. Today, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that after filing explanation by the petitioner, no final orders are passed under Section 6-A of the Act. Although it is the case of the petitioner that there is no basis for seizure, whether he has violated the provisions of the 2008 Order or not is a matter to be enquired into by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. As much as it is stated that the stock, which was seized, is a perishable item and seizure was effected as early as on 05.06.2010, the respondents ought to have passed orders for interim disposal of the seized stock pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. As much as no order has been passed and as the stock was seized as early as on 05.06.2010, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the seized stock to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to its value. Such bank guarantee shall be subject to final orders to be passed under Section 6-A of the Act. Further, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th JULY, 2010. Note: issue c.c. tomorrow. kvni