IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.21189 of 2006 Between: K. Tejovathi … Petitioner And The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Kadapa, Kadapa District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21189 of 2006 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing 90% of the value of the stock seized on 17.04.2000 by the Inspector of Police VCCSD, Flying Squad, Tirupati, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing No.AEE 6156. When the said lorry was carrying 113 bags of Bengal gram, some other pulses and 76 bags of boiled rice etc., the same was intercepted and seized. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated. By order dated 29.10.2004, respondent No.1 directed confiscation of 10% of the value of the seized stock and directed release of the remaining value of the stock “to the concerned”, while imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- on the owner of the lorry i.e., the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the said order is not being complied with and the seized stock has not been returned to him as directed by respondent No.1. Having heard Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that this writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is wholly misconceived. On her own showing, the petitioner is only the owner of the lorry and she has not claimed to be the owner of the seized stock. Even in the order of respondent No.1, referred to above, the balance quantity of seized stock was directed to be returned “to the concerned”, which necessarily means that to the person, who owns the stock and not to the petitioner, who has nothing to do with the stock, being only the carrier. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with liberty, however, to the owner of the goods to seek appropriate remedy for enforcement of the order of respondent No.1. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26879 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.06.2009 ES