THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21916 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein was granted a licence by the Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri under Section 7 (1) of the A.P. (Agriculture Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 to use a shop and godown within the notiﬁed area for purchase / sale and etc., of the notiﬁed agricultural products/livestock. While so, on 12.09.2008 the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar along with Vigilance and Enforcement unit inspected the godown of the petitioner and seized 70 bags of rice, each weighing 50 kgs under a panchanama alleging that the same was PDS rice and was illegally stored by him. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent herein by letter dated 12.09.2008 requested the Station House Oﬃcer, Tadipatri Urban P.S. to launch criminal proceedings and accordingly the Station House Oﬃcer, Tadipatri P.S. registered FIR No.120 of 2008, dated 13.09.2008, under Section 7(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause-17 (b) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, against the petitioner and three others. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. The material on record shows that on 12.09.2008 the Vigilance & Enforcement Oﬃcer of Anantapur Town intercepted a van bearing No.AP 29-T-4143 which was loaded with 79 bags of PDS rice each weighing 40 kgs having found that the said rice was illegally being transported to Dharmavaram. The two persons traveling in the said vehicle confessed that they purchased the said vehicle from the petitioner herein who is a rice merchant in Tadipatri town, who used to store PDS rice by collecting from various places. Pursuant thereto, the inspecting team proceeded to the business premises of the petitioner at Tadipatri and found 70 bags of PDS rice each weighing 50 kgs. During enquiry, the petitioner failed to produce any record or licence to deal with the rice. Hence, the 79 bags of rice along with the vehicle as well as 70 bags of PDS rice from the godown of the petitioner were seized under panchanama and handed over to the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tadipatri for safe- custody. In the present writ petition, the petitioner sought a declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing 70 bags of rice from the petitioner’s godown is arbitrary and illegal, contending inter alia that the 70 bags of rice found in his godown was not PDS rice and that the respondents had falsely implicated the petitioner in the crime and the stocks from his godown were seized illegally. It is also contended that as a matter of fact he had shown to the respondents all the records relating to the stock in his godown including the licence at the time of the seizure and explained that he was in no way concerned with the alleged illegal transportation of PDS rice in the vehicle bearing No.AP- 29-T-4143. It is further claimed that as a matter of fact the petitioner purchased 80 bags of rice from M/s. Sri Hanuman Rice Mill, Gannevaripalli, Anatapur District vide Invoice No.1, dated 2.4.2008 which was also veriﬁed and conﬁrmed by Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Anatapur. Though the said facts were explained, the respondents failed to consider the same and seized the stocks and initiated prosecution vide Cr.No.120/2008 along with the accused Nos.2 to 4 therein who were allegedly transporting PDS rice. Having hearsd the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material on record, I am not inclined to express any opinion as to the petitioner’s claim that the rice seized from his shop is not PDS rice and that he has nothing to do with the PDS rice being transported in AP-29-T-4143. It is a matter for investigation in Cr.No.120 of 2008 and the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Absolutely, no case is made out to show that either the seizure of the stock from the petitioner’s godown or the registration of Cr.No.120 of 2008 is without jurisdiction or contrary to provisions of any Statute. Hence, the declaration as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take the further steps following due process of law. It is also left open to the petitioner to move the proper forum for release of the seized stock pending finalisation of such proceedings, in which event the same shall be considered in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.09.2008 Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 21916 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Venkat Sai Traders, Mandi Merchants, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri P.V. Satya Prasad, S/o. P. Hari Govindappa, Age 38 years, Occ: Wholesale Dealer, R/o. H.No. 8/488, Main Bazar, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District - 515 411 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District - 515 411. 2 Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar Office, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District - 515 411. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an Orders or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in seizing the Petitioners 70 bas of (1010) Number quality rice containing 50 Kgs each from the Petitioner's Godown pursuant to the proceedings Rc.No. CS/582/2008, Dated 12-09-2008 issued by the respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, mala ﬁde, null and void and violation of Fundamental Right to Trade and business of the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.LAKSHMI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: