THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6021 of 2010 17.03.2010 Between: M/s.Dhanalaxmi Traders ….Petitioner AND The District Collector (CS), Karimnagar District, Karimnagar And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6021 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a trading rice mill owned by a partnership firm. It obtained licence under Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (Control Order, for brevity) as a retailer, wholesaler, producer and commission agent. On 09.03.2010, third respondent surprised petitioner rice mill and seized 1,521.60 quintals of paddy. The allegation is that the stock was found stored in an unlicensed premises. The petitioner immediately filed an application before Joint Collector on 10.03.2010 requesting for expeditious disposal of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act, for brevity), desist him from ordering interim sale and release of the seized stock under Panchanama dated 09.03.2010, and the same is pending. Even while the same is pending, the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of third respondent in seizing the stock as illegal and arbitrary, and seeking further declaration in not disposing of the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock as illegal and arbitrary. The counsel for petitioner made various submissions including the submission that being the producer as defined in the Control Order, the stock of the petitioner cannot be seized. This is, however, refuted by learned Assistant Government Pleader, who, after getting instructions opposed writ petition inter alia on the ground that licensed rice mill has to obtain a separate storage licence if the stock is to be stored at premises other than the licensed premises. These are the issues, which go to the root of the matter and have to be adjudicated in the first instance by the Joint Collector. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on this. Insofar as the application made by petitioner for interim release is concerned, there is no denial that it is still pending. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the Joint Collector should dispose of the application made by petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Besides action may be initiated immediately under Section 6-A of the Act and the same may be disposed of within a period of eight (8) weeks. In this writ petition, no relief is granted. The writ petition, with the above observations, is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.03.2010 Pln Note: Issue CC by 18.03.2010. (By order) pln