IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23028 of 2008 Between: Doki Enterprises, Rep. by Sri Doki Bala Kameswara Rao, S/o. Harinadh, Hindu, aged 43 Years, Shop No.12, Municipal Coporation Shopping Complex, Dykes Tank Road, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in seizing the Rice from the business premises situated in Shop No.12, Municipal Corporation Shopping Complex, Dykes Tank Road, Visakhapatnam and Godown situated at D.No. 16-8-22, Oﬃcial Colony, Visakhapatnam pursuant to the Mediators Report Dt. 10-10-2008 as illegal, unjust, against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the stocks seized in favour of the petitioner forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. B.DEVANAND Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23028 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein is carrying on business at Visakhapatnam under a licence granted under A.P. Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licence & Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short, ‘Control Order’). On 10.10.2008 the 2nd respondent inspected the business premises as well as the godown and seized the entire stock available in the godown and the shop under a Panchanama alleging certain contraventions of the Control Order. Pursuant thereto, the report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the E.C. Act’) was ﬁled before the 1st respondent. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner made an application dated 13.10.2008 before the 1st respondent explaining that the alleged contraventions of the Control Order is absolutely false and without any basis and accordingly requesting release of the seized stock. However, the 1st respondent has not passed any order on his application so far and the petitioner understands that steps are being taken in the meanwhile for sale of the seized stock. Hence, the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Since the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock is pending before the 1st respondent, without considering the same in accordance with law, the sale of the seized stock is unwarranted and unjustified. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock dated 13.10.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, there shall be stay of sale of the seized stock. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 22.10.2008 gbs Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/O) gbs