IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25703 of 2008 Between: Raghunayaka Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. Chinnayagudem, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep by its Secretary, Tatini Srinivasa Rao, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & District Magistrate, West Godavari District at Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Agricultural Officer, Devarapalli, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in seized stocks (i) M.O.P. 222 bags (ii) C.A.N. 205 bags, (iii) S.O.P. 716 bags, (iv) A/S 2 bags, (v) Urea 375 bags, (vi) SSP 13 bags, (Vii) Mg. S.O.4 14 bags and (viii) DAP 360 bags to be disposed off vide Roc. CS-1/223/ECA/2008 dated 19-11-2008 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and consequently direct the respondents to release the said stock to the petitioner society. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25703 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in seizing the stocks (i) M.O.P.222 bags (ii) C.A.N.205 bags (iii) S.O.P.716 bags (iv) A/S 2 bags (v) Urea 375 bags (vi) SSP 13 bags (vii) Mg.S.O.4 14 bags and (viii) DAP 360 bags and proposing to dispose off them vide Roc.CS-1/223/ECA/2008, dated 19.11.2008, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and consequently direct the respondents to release the stock to the petitioner Society. 2. It appears, on 03.11.2008, the 2nd respondent along with a team consisting of various Officers inspected the petitioner Society and, on noticing excess stock than the stock mentioned in the register, the stocks were seized and a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was registered on the file of the District Collector of Eluru, West Godavari District. When the respondents sought to sell the stocks seized from the petitioner Society, the present writ petition is filed. 3. While admitting the writ petition on 24.11.2008, by order in WPMP.No.33600 of 2008 the respondents were directed not to sell the seized stocks for a period of two weeks from the date of order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the variation in the ground stock purported to have been found was only of Rs.40,000/- in value, the value of the stock seized by the respondents is Rs.18,74,535.52 ps. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the stocks which the petitioner Society had already sold are not supposed to be retained with it and it cannot be a care taker of the sold stocks. Further, for making immediate and timely availability of fertilizers to all the farmers, proceedings, dated 19.11.2008, were issued for disposal of the seized stocks. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Society is not an individual trader. It is a Cooperative Society consisting of more than 600 members, and for the benefit of the members of the Society, the fertilizers were stocked. Value of the stock alleged to have been found in variation by the Officers concerned, at the time of inspection, was worth Rs.40,000/- but the value of the stock seized by the respondents was Rs.18,74,535.52. 7. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be permitted to sell the stocks seized forthwith by getting the same released on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the bank guarantee furnished shall be subject to the result of the case filed under Section 6-A of the Act. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.12.2008 Note: Furnish CC by 15.12.2008 B/o v v