THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22766 of 2010 Date: 14.09.2010 Between: Ravi Traders. ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the District Collector, Guntur and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Sreerama Murthy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Agriculture The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 31.08.2010 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture. The petitioner is a dealer in fertilizers. On 21.08.2010, respondent No.3 along with vigilance and enforcement officials visited the petitioner’s shop and seized stocks of fertilizers worth Rs.7,44,601/- on the main allegation that the petitioner has been selling the fertilizers at prices higher than M.R.P. While issuing show-cause notice dated 31.08.2010 under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.2 passed orders on the same day directing disposal of the seized fertilizers under Section 6(2)(ii) of the Act and remit the sale proceeds in the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. This order is questioned in the writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation that the petitioner is selling the fertilizers at prices more than M.R.P. is falsified by the contents of the show-cause notice. The learned counsel further submitted that except the said allegation, all other allegations are too trivial in nature, which do not warrant disposal of the fertilizers by the department. The learned Government Pleader for Agriculture opposes these contentions. As the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, I do not find it appropriate to render conclusive findings on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, a prima facie perusal of the show-cause notice shows that out of the three varieties of fertilizers, it is alleged that DAP and complex of 16:20:0:13 are stated to be sold at prices less than the M.R.P. while urea alone was sold at higher price than the M.R.P. However, it is alleged in the notice that the petitioner is selling the fertilizers at higher prices. In my prima facie opinion, the contents of the show-cause notice are self-contradictory. Therefore, in my opinion the order directing sale/disposal of the fertilizers in open market is not appropriate and unwarranted. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to release the seized fertilizers to the petitioner subject to its furnishing bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the seized stock, if not already sold, which shall be subject to the result of the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act pending before him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29047 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th September, 2010 Note: Issue operative portion ‘by wire’ at party’s costs. (B/o) GHN