IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33134 of 2010 Between: Chennamaneni Sriranga Rao & another. ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Karimnagar District at Karimnagar & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33134 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to return 70% of the stocks from out of the seized stock of 130 quintals of single polished rice, 11 quintals of Erramallelu rice, 6 quintals of Swarna Masoori rice, 107 quintals of Hamsa rice, 88.32 quintals of Paddy, 4.75 quintals of BPT rice and 12.50 quintals of broken rice in pursuance of order dated 25.04.2005 of respondent No.1. Though time was taken for filing counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, no counter affidavit is filed. This case discloses bizarre facts. The petitioners’ rice mill was inspected by respondent No.2 on 10.09.1997 and 11.09.1997 during which the abovementioned quantities of food grains were seized. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated by respondent No.1. After completing the enquiry, respondent No.1 vide his order dated 25.04.2005 directed confiscation of 30% of the seized stocks and return of the balance 70% stocks. The petitioners were stated to have been made a representation on 16.06.2008 to respondent No.1 to return the 70% of the seized goods in pursuance of the said order of respondent No.1. As they were not returned, the petitioners issued legal notice dated 29.09.2010 to respondent No.1 to return the said stock. Strangely, there is no response from respondent No.1 and the fact remains that the seized stock, which was directed to be returned to the petitioners, has not been returned. In my opinion, non-returning of the said stock amounts to patent arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.1. The petitioners being the legitimate owners of the said stock, failure of the respondents to return the same for more than 5 years is destructive of rule of law. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit to justify this unconscionable act on their part. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the petitioners within one month from today. The respondents shall forthwith return the value of the 70% of the stock computed at the market rates prevailing as on the date. Respondent No.1 shall identify the persons responsible for failure to return the stock and recover the loss sustained by the State on account of payment of present market value of the stock and the costs in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.42065 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.02.2011 ES