HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21008 of 2010 Date : 24.08.2010 Between : Desu Veeraiah Sons, Ongole, rep. by its Managing Partners & others. …..Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21008 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioners are dealers in fertilizers. Their business premises was inspected on 10.08.2010, and stocks were verified. At the time of inspection, respondents have noticed that the petitioners were selling the fertilizers at higher rates than the maximum retail price (MRP), by changing the price tags with the stenciled ones. Although the original MRP was mentioned as Rs.250.80 ps. per bag, it was stenciled by lable with revised price of Rs.275.76 ps. It is also the allegation of respondents that the petitioners have also failed to maintain proper registers with specific demarcation of each category of fertilizer, and thereby, contravened the provisions of Clauses 3(3) and 7 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and also violated the terms and conditions of license. Accordingly, the respondents have seized 3198.7 Metric Tons of fertilizers, worth Rs.1,66,19,441/-. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that in view of the instructions issued by the Government of India for fixation of maximum retail price, it cannot be said that the petitioners are selling the fertilizers at higher rates, by stenciling the maximum retail price labels. It is further submitted that in view of the explanation offered by the petitioners, they are entitled for release of stocks, on furnishing security. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has also produced the copy of proceedings issued by the Collector (Civil Supplies), on 21st of August 2010, issued in proceedings No.Rc.CS1/6A/165/2010, by which, the Collector has ordered for interim disposal of the stocks seized. A perusal of the seizure panchanama and the order, dated 21st of August 2010, shows that the allegation against the petitioners is that they are cheating the farmers by stenciling the maximum retail price labels. In view of the serious allegation made against the petitioners with regard to stenciling of maximum retail price labels, it is a matter to be inquired into by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. When the report is already submitted by the inspecting officials and proceedings are pending before the Collector (Civil Supplies) under Section 6-A of the Act, it is not desirable for this Court to inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the allegation levelled against the petitioners. In view of the serious allegation made against the petitioners, and as much as the seized fertilizers are meant for distribution to needy farmers at the peak season of agriculture, I do not find any illegality in seizing the stock and taking further steps under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act. Although a request is made by the learned counsel for petitioners for release of stocks on furnishing security, but having regard to the nature of allegation made against the petitioners and also the nature of commodity, which is needed to be supplied to the needy farmers immediately for the purpose of agriculture, it is not a case to order for release of stocks in favour of petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit to entertain the writ petition. However, as the petitioners have already submitted their explanation and proceedings are pending before the 2nd respondent-Collector (Civil Supplies), I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to dispose of the 6-A proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ 24th August 2010 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr