THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.10718 OF 2011 ORDER Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of the respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6-4-2011 in File No.F1/160/2011 in ECAS No.5/2011 whereby, the 1st respondent has directed disposal of the seized stock from the premises of the petitioner in public auction as illegal. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a Dal Mill called Hanuman Agro Industries situated at Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warnagal District. On 8-2- 2011, the Inspector of Vigilance and Enforcement, Hasanparthy along with his staff inspected the mill and verified the books of accounts. On such inspection, the said Officer noticed variation of stock beyond permissible limits. The petitioner allegedly produced FC returns periodically and he did not take adequate measures to ensure storing of commodities in proper condition. On a report submitted by the said Inspector, the second respondent herein viz., Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Hasanparthy, laid a complaint under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the first respondent. The first respondent herein initiated action by issuing a show cause notice dated 6-4- 2011 under Section 6-B of the Act calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within eight days from the date of receipt of the notice. At the same time, by means of the impugned order, the first respondent has directed the Tahsildar, Geesugonda to dispose of the seized stock by way of public auction and to deposit the sale proceeds. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioner for seizing the stock are incorrect and in any event if the allegations are taken on their face value, the so called variations are trivial in nature which are within the permissible limits. The counsel further contends that in any event, the seized stock ought not to have been directed to be sold in public auction, as the commodities are not subject to speedy decay. The counsel therefore submits that the first respondent be directed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act without any further delay and protect the interest of the petitioner by staying the auction of the seized stock. I am not inclined to examine the matter on merits of the case. Indisputably the first respondent has issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Act seeking explanation of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted explanation in response to the said show cause notice. Eventually, the first respondent shall have to conduct an enquiry and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the defence put forth by the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the seized stock consists of Red Gram, Red Gram Dal, Green Gram, Green Gram Dal, which in the opinion of this Court is not subject to speedy decay. In the circumstances of the case, having regard to the defence taken and the nature of the enquiry to be held, I deem it appropriate that the enquiry under Section 6-A be completed in the interest of justice within a time frame. The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to complete the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 6-4-2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such enquiry is completed, the seized stock shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI rkk Dated: 19-4-2011