IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.12907 of 2009 Between: Sri Venkata Lakshmi Parboiled Rice Mill, A Partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its Raw Mill at Komarabanda, Kodad, represented by its Managing Partner-Mr.G.Satyanarayana, s/o.G.G. Akkiah, 55 yrs, Kodad-508 206. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by District Collector, Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.Manohar, Senior Counsel for Sri M.S.Srinivasa Iyengar. Counsel for the respondent: GP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- In this Writ Petition, seizure of paddy from the petitioner’s possession is questioned. In addition to the seizure, the petitioner also questioned orders dated 5-6- 2009 and 20-6-2009 passed by the District Collector, Nalgonda District, respondent herein. The petitioner contended that the whole premise on which the respondent ordered for milling of the paddy and delivery of the resultant rice to be sold through Special Counters at Nalgonda, Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy is incorrect. In support of its plea that the seized paddy is not of Nellore Sambar variety (preferred variety), but it is only of J.J. Variety (Boiled variety), which is not fit for producing raw rice, the petitioner placed reliance on the report of the Tahsildar, Kodad, vide Lr.No.B/3506/2009, dated 29-5-2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, in both of the impugned orders, did not refer to the said report of the Tahsildar, Kodad, which, according to the petitioner, clearly supports its contention that the seized paddy is only of J.J. Boiled variety. I have perused the two orders passed by the respondent, which are impugned in this Writ Petition. As rightly pointed out by Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, there is no reference to the above-mentioned report of the Tahsildar, Kodad, in the said two orders. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that subsequent to the above-mentioned report, the respondent called for a further report, on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed. But, reference to the latter report is also not made in the two impugned orders. In view of the fact that the respondent has not considered the plea of the petitioner in the light of the report of the Tahsildar, Kodad, the impugned orders are quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda, is directed to pass a fresh order within a period of two weeks from today, after considering the report of the Tahsildar, Kodad. Before passing such order, he shall supply copies of the purported second report pertaining to the test milling of the seized paddy to the petitioner and give it an opportunity of filing its objections to the said report. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01-7-2009 MNR