IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.350 of 2011 Between: Muvvala Venkata Subba Satyavathi & another. ..... Petitioners AND The Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.350 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing 98.80 quintals of rice along with lorry bearing registered No.AP 16U 7648, as illegal and arbitrary. The abovementioned stock along with the lorry were seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam on 05.11.2010 on National Highway No.9 near Kachavaram Village on the suspicion that the seized stock was meant for public distribution and that petitioner No.2 has illegally procured the same from various fair price shop dealers with a view to sell to fish tank owners at a higher price. Consequent on the seizure report, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioners are stated to have made their applications for release of the seized lorry along with the stock. However, while referring to the application of petitioner No.1 for release of lorry, respondent No.2 has passed order dated 07.01.2011 declining to release the lorry and that so far no order has been passed directing sale of the seized stock. At the hearing, Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 6A of the Act is without jurisdiction because there is no restriction on the movement of rice under the provisions of the Act or the control orders made thereunder. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kailash Prasad Yadav and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another[1] in support of his submission. Inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the issue of validity of initiation of Section 6A proceedings by respondent No.2. The petitioners are entitled to raise this issue during the enquiry before respondent No.2. For the present purpose, it will suffice to protect the interest of the petitioners pending conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to release the lorry to petitioner No.1 subject to her furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the seized stock. Respondent No.2 is further directed not to sell the seized stock pending proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.445 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.01.2011 ES NOTE:- CC by 20.01.2011. (B/O) ES [1] AIR 2007 SC 2626