IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.653 OF 2010 DATED:21.6.2011 Between: M/s. Sri Balaji Modern Rice and Oil Mill Rep. by its Prop: S.C.Hari Prasada Rao S/o. Chandrasekher Rao R/o.1/2, Yelammakoli Street Karlambakkam Village and post Pallipet Taluk, Tiruvallur District, Tamilnadu State and another … Appellants And The Deputy Tahsildar (CS) Narayankhed, Medak District and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.653 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) The vehicle transporting 175 quintals of coarse rice was seized on the ground of alleged violation of Control Order. The order of seizure was questioned before the writ Court but of no avail to the writ appellants herein because of its dismissal, consequently this writ appeal. During the pendency of the writ appeal, proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) came to be clinched by the authorities by an order of confiscation which is not questioned by the appellants. Thus the seizure having been superceded by an order of confiscation appropriate course for the appellants is to invoke the statutory remedy. With that liberty to appellants, Writ Appeal is dismissed. As regards reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on a judgment of this Court in Vinayaka Agro Products v. Inspector of Police[1] to contend that confiscation cannot come in way of appellants does no way assist him because a perusal of the judgment reveals that it was decided on the basis of concession by the learned Advocate General of the State that the Control Order under which seizure was effected in that case, was not applicable to the said case. No such concession is on record before this Court by the other side. Thus in view of the facts of the judgment supra the mandate thereof is not attracted. With these observations, Writ Appeal is dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 21-6-2011 B. Narsinga Rao [1] 1996 (3) ALT 673 (DB)