IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17045 of 2008 Between: M/s Archana Traders, rep by its Prop.Mali Reddy Venkata Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, aged 32 Occ: Business, R/o. Amangal Village Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Supply Officer, Circle III, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.A7/532/2008 dated 29-6-2008 directing the1st respondent for interim disosal ofthe seized stocks is null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.6.2008 whereby the seized stock of 373 qtls of rice is directed to be sold, pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). On 18.5.2008, the premises of M/s Venkateswara Enterprises Trading Rice Mill was inspected by the Civil Supplies oﬃcials and a lorry bearing Registration No. KA 39- 4823 loaded with rice was seized; mediators report was recorded on suspicion that there was a contravention of Clauses 3, 4, 7A, 12 and 16 of the Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. The commodity of rice was seized and entrusted to the MLS Point, Ramanthapur for safe custody, pending the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. However by the impugned order, the 2 nd respondent had directed interim sale of the seized commodity. Section 6-A (2) of the Act enables the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on an inspection of any essential commodity, where he is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or that it is otherwise expedient in the public interest to do so, to order the sale at a controlled price if any ﬁxed for such essential commodity under the Act or under any law for the time being in force and where no such price is ﬁxed, to be sold by public auction. On such sale, sub-section (3) of Section 6-A enjoins that the sale proceeds after deduction of the expenses for the sale or auction shall be dealt with in accordance with the circumstances enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) of sub- section 3 of Section 6-A of the Act. As is apparent from the clear provisions of Section 6-A (2) of the Act, the Collector has no absolute power to order interim sale. The exercise of discretion to order interim sale is subject to the statutory limitation namely; a satisfaction that the seized commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest to do so. It is axiomatic that rice is not a commodity that is subject to speedy and natural decay, given the context that proceedings under Section 6-A should not take an interminable amount of time. Whether it is expedient in the public interest to order sale is also a circumstance that will have to be demonstrated by reasons recorded for arriving at such satisfaction. The exercise of discretion to order interim sale qua the provisions of Section 6-A (2) of the Act, cannot be mechanical. The impugned order violates the statutory discipline in a gross manner. The order is bereft of any reasons recorded and is therefore perverse. The order is mechanical, passed without any application of mind. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies concedes that the order of the 2nd respondent is unsustainable in the context of the requirements of Section 6-A (2) of the Act. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the 2nd respondent bearing Reference No. A7/532/2008 dated 29.6.2008 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is however at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the principles set out in this judgment. Since the 2nd respondent had passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition mechanically, without any application of mind and thereby avoidably created a litigative situation, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, with costs of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only), of which Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 06.08.2008 Note: CC as soon as possible Bo cvm