IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.14806 of 2009 Between: P.P.V.Ramanjaneyulu. … Petitioner And: Government of A.P., reptd., by the District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Krishna Murthy. Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner questioned order, dated 14-7-2009, of the District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam, respondent No.1 herein, whereby he directed the petitioner handing over of 692.92 quintals of BPT variety of paddy to the District Manager, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, respondent No.3 herein, for milling the paddy and dispose of the resultant rice in open market at the rate of Rs.20/- per K.G. The above-mentioned paddy was seized under two charges, which read as under: “ Charge No.1: That the respondent has stored 692-92 quintals of B.P.T. variety of Paddy (5204) in C.W.C. godown, Gudiwada, without obtaining any permission or licence from the Competent Authority and thus he violated the Clause 2(4) and 2(7) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. Charge No.2: That the Respondent has been doing business in Food grains without participating in Mill levy and thus he violated the Clause 4 of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984”. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 with an application to release the said paddy, but, the latter, after considering the petitioner’s representation, passed the impugned order. Sri G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate agriculturist, who purchased paddy for his family use and stored the same without knowing that storage of paddy requires license. The claim of the petitioner is required to be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Therefore, it is not possible to accept the petitioner’s request for unconditional release of the paddy. But, at the same time, the direction to dispose of the resultant rice, after milling the paddy, at Rs.20/- per K.G., through Civil Supplies counters would cause prejudice to the petitioner’s interest if he ultimately succeeds in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, to balance the public interest and that of the petitioner, I find it appropriate to modify the impugned order as under: 1) The seized paddy shall be permitted to be sold by the petitioner under the direct supervision and control of respondent No.3 either as rice, after milling, or as paddy; 2) the sale of the entire stock should be completed on or before 31st August, 2009 and the sale proceeds shall be deposited by respondent No.3 with respondent No.1, which shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act; and 3) Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the 6-A proceedings within a period of two months. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:23 -7-2009 MNR