IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.12808 OF 2007 M/s Srinivasa Rice Mill Rep.by its Proprietor Sri Nallamalli Srinivasarao .... PETITIONER AND District Collector and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.12808 OF 2007 ORDER: Respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Guntur District, while on vigilance duty, intercepted a lorry bearing No.AP-22-T-5555, coming towards Chirala from Bapatla. It was noticed that some rice bags and sugar bags were being unloaded from the lorry in the premises of petitioner’s rice mill. On being prima facie satisfied that the said commodities were meant for public distribution system, respondent No.3 seized 2985 bags of paddy, 858 bags of rice, 40 bags of broken rice and 60 bags of brawn under the cover of panchanama, dated 14.05.2007. 2. This writ petition has been filed questioning the said seizure on the premise that there was no mill – wise target in the procurement of paddy or rice and that the petitioner had already supplied the required quantity of rice towards levy of the said stock. The respondents while denying the said plea, contend that the petitioner had indulged in clandestine business by purchasing PDS rice and sugar for the purpose of selling them in black market, hence, the stock was rightly seized. 3. This Court while considering the interlocutory application in W.P.M.P.No.15995 of 2007 in W.P.No.12808 2007, by order, dated 28.08.2007 directed the respondents to release the seized stock subject to the condition that the petitioner should furnish immovable property as security for the total value of the seized stock. 4. The questions whether the petitioner indulged in clandestine business, and whether the stock was legally seized are all the matters to be considered by the competent authority in the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said proceedings have been initiated and as per the orders of this Court dated 28.08.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.15995 of 2007, the petitioner furnished security and thereupon the stock has already been released. 6. As the stock has already been released which is the limited grievance of the petitioner, the cause espoused in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that 6-A proceedings have already been initiated, security furnished by the petitioner can only be subject to the result of the said enquiry. In fact, this Court by the aforesaid order also observed that in the event of an order of confiscation, State should be in a position to recover the value of the seized stock. 7. In view of the same, while observing that the immovable propeorty security furnished by the petitioner should be continued subject to result of 6-A proceedings, Respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Guntur District, is directed to dispose of 6-A proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court, if the said proceedings have not already been disposed of. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2010. YVL