IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5506 of 2009 Between: P.Chandra Mohan Rao, S/o. Srimannarayana, M/s Dhanalakshmi Par Boiled Rice Mill, T.B.Palem (V) Kodad, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipantam. 2 The Asst. Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada, O/o. Tahasildar office Compound, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the order issued by the respondent No.1 vide proc.ECP.No.538/2008 dated 24-2-2009 received on 2-3-2009 (to the extent of it went against the petitioner) as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5506 OF 2009 ORDER: It appears, when the load of rice belonging to the petitioner was being transported in a lorry on 11.12.2008, a check was conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement officials on the way and the 2nd respondent- Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Vijayawada, having found the said rice to be superfine raw rice and was being transported unauthorizedly to Tamilnadu State, seized the lorry along with the rice, and, consequently, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.02.2009, the 1st respondent ordered to confiscate 50% of the seized stock to the Government and to release 50% of the seized stock to the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is to be noted that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, before the District Sessions Court, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, but the petitioner, without availing the said remedy, has directly approached this Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rice seized is boiled rice, but not superfine raw rice and, therefore, the petitioner wants the seized rice to be sent to the concerned laboratory for examination to find out whether it is superfine rice or boiled rice, and the learned counsel expresses a doubt as to whether the same can be done by the appellate authority in exercise of its powers. There is no doubt that the appellate authority, by exercising its powers as per law, can very well consider sending the seized rice for examination. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a regular appeal before the District Sessions Court, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, against the impugned order dated 24.02.2009, and plead the relief of sending the seized rice for examination. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 18th March, 2009. IBL