THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22629 of 2010 Dated 19th October, 2010 Between: Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar District. …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.Narender Reddy Counsel for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 5: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in releasing the pledged stock of paddy to the petitioner bank in pursuance of the order dated 21.08.2010 of respondent No.2 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner bank sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to release the pledged stock of paddy to it for realization of the loan amount from respondent No.6. I have heard Sri M. Narender Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner bank and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner bank has advanced loans to respondent No.6 and got certain stock of paddy hypothecated and certain other stock pledged in its favour. On the basis of an inspection undertaken by the officials of the Civil Supplies Department in respondent No.6’s premises, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated and stocks seized. After giving notices to all the parties concerned including the petitioner bank, respondent No.2 has passed final orders on 21.08.2010, wherein he has directed confiscation of 21,691 quintals of paddy, 3118 quintals of rice and 150 quintals of broken rice. Respondent No.2 has directed release of 25,571 quintals of paddy to the petitioner bank observing that the said quantity alone was entered in B-Register, though the petitioner bank had claimed that a total quantity of 47,262 quintals of paddy was under either hypothecation or pledge of the petitioner bank. To the extent of the balance quantities, which were directed to be confiscated, the petitioner bank is stated to have filed an appeal under Section 6 of the Act. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner bank is that the abovementioned order of respondent No.2 dated 21.08.2010 directing release of 25,571 quintals of paddy to it is not being implemented. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it i s inter alia stated that during the course of verification following the passing of the order under Section 6-A of the Act, it was found that there was a shortfall in the seized stocks kept in the godowns and mill premises and that no part of the quantity of 25,571 quintals of paddy directed to be released in favour of the petitioner has been released so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pledged stocks are lying in PACS, Aamadabakula Village, Shiva Industries, Kothakota and the mill premises and that even assuming that there was some shortfall in stocks kept in these places, as there is no dispute about the fact that the quantities lying in those places are under pledge to the petitioner bank, they may be directed to be released in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No.2. In my opinion, this submission of the learned counsel is acceptable because it is the responsibility of respondent No.2 to ensure that the pledged stock belonging to the petitioner bank is released. If there is a shortfall, the petitioner bank is entitled to work out its remedies before appropriate forum. However, that cannot be a ground for respondent No.2 to hold up the available stock without releasing the same to the petitioner bank. For the aforementioned reasons, respondent No.2 is directed to release to the petitioner bank the pledged stock actually available in the abovementioned three places forthwith. If there is shortfall from out of 25,571 quintals directed to be released in favour of the petitioner bank, the bank is permitted to work out its remedies before appropriate forum. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28847 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.(SR) No.125364 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th October, 2010 GHN