THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22680 of 2009 DATED: 21.04.2010 Between: M/s. Srinivasa Rice Mill rep. by its Proprietor M. Prakash and another .. Petitioners And The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement and team consisting of Tahsildar, Tadepalli, and C.S.Dt., Tadepalli and his staff and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Questioning the action of respondent authorities in seizing 206.50 quintals of rice and auto bearing No.AP 16 TX 2418, belonging to the petitioners respectively, under the cover of mediators’ report dated 14.10.2009, on the allegation that the petitioners are dealing in rice meant for public distribution, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioners that the rice now seized is not meant for public distribution and in fact it is the rice that was seized earlier on the same allegations and subsequently released in favour of the 1st petitioner and that they did not indulge in clandestine business, as alleged. This Court, on 27.10.2009, while issuing notice before admission, ordered for release of the seized vehicle in favour of the 2nd petitioner, on his giving undertaking to the 2nd respondent- Collector (CS), Guntur, that he will not alienate the vehicle and will produce the same as and when required, and also directed the 2nd respondent not to sell the seized rice of 206.50 quintals. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the case of the petitioners, submits that the seizure is illegal and he relies on a judgment of this Court in Vinayaka Agro Products vs. Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department[1]. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents submits that proceedings initiated against the petitioners, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are pending before the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to conclude the said proceedings and pass appropriate orders. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since 6-A proceedings initiated against the petitioners are stated to be pending before the 2nd respondent, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose it of, directing the 2nd respondent to conclude the 6-A proceedings pending against the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as per law, as expeditiously as possible. It is needless to state that the petitioners can raise all their pleas before the 2nd respondent and till the disposal of 6-A proceedings, interim orders passed on 27.10.2009 shall continue. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 21st April, 2010 IBL [1] 1996 (3) ALT 673