IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5182 of 2008 Between: M/s. Gayathri Packers, D.No.5-49, Chandrampet(V) Sircilla(M) Karimnagar Dist, Rep.by its Managing Partner Chittampelly Venu Madhav ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector Karimnagar Dist 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Sircilla Karimnagar Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.MAHENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the seizure of edible oils and the four oil tankers/containers by respondent No.2 from the petitioner’s possession on 27-02-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to release the seized stock along with the tankers. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. On 27-02-2008, respondent No.2 inspected the petitioner’s premises along with other Officials and after verification of the registers, seized the abovementioned stock along with four containers, on the allegation that there were variations between the entries in the stock registers and the ground balance. The petitioner’s case is that there are no control orders in force with the passing of the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Amendment Order, 1997, and that therefore, seizure of the stocks by respondent No.2 is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner averred that it made a representation on 07-03- 2008 to respondent No.1 for release of the seized stocks, but no orders have been passed so far on the said representation. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that this Court need not adjudicate on the issues raised by the petitioner at this stage, since its application for release of stock is pending before respondent No.1 and yet to be disposed of. In my opinion interest of justice would be met, if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, made on 07- 03-2008 for release of the stock, in accordance with law and, not to sell the seized stock till then. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13-03-2008 Note: Wire at party’s costs. B/o LUR