HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23633 of 2010 Date 24.09.2010 Between: Chitturi Venkata Subba Rao @ Nani. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Krishna and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri T.Rajendra Prasad for Sri Ch.Raghuram Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23633 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a food grain dealer carrying on his business at Ranigari Thota, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada. On 30.07.2010, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer and other officials of the Civil Supplies Department intercepted the lorry bearing No. AP 37 U 2795 and allegedly found the rice meant for public distribution system was being transported in the said lorry. The lorry along with the stock were seized. As a sequel to the said seizure, the inspecting officials have inspected the petitioner’s business premises and seized 169.25 quintals of rice, 22 quintals of broken rice and 4.75 quintals of boiled ravva in the presence of mediators under a cover of panchanama and handed over the seized stock to a person by name Sri K.E.V. Satyanarayana, partner of Srinivasa Enterprises, for safe custody. The value of the seized stock was estimated at Rs.3,86,362.50/-. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated. The petitioner made an application for release of the seized stock. Respondent No.1, by the impugned order, has rejected the said application and directed sale of the seized stock in public auction. I have heard Sri T.Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Learned Counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner had no nexus with the stock seized from the lorry and is concerned only with the food grains and other items found in his shop. He further stated that the petitioner has not indulged in any illegality in conducting his business and that if the seized stock is sold in public auction pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, his client will suffer irreparable injury. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is only claiming release of the stock seized from his shop. The seizure has taken place on the allegation of variation between the book balance and the ground balance. The petitioner is entitled to explain the reasons therefor in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. In my opinion, while the request of the petitioner for release of the stock does not deserve to be accepted, at the same time on the facts of the present case, interest of justice would be met if the seized stock is not sold in public auction as directed under the impugned order pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the proceedings, under Section 6-A of the Act, within a period of three months from today. Pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the seized stock shall not be sold. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.30251 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:24.09.2010 usd