IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11646 of 2009 Between: M/s. Satyanarayana & Sons, Godavarikhani, rep. by its Prop. R. Satyanarayana R/o. Venkataiah R/o. 16-10-61, Kalyannagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (Collector (CS)) Karimnagar 2 The Tahsildar (CS), Ramagundam, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 3 The Asst. Supply Officer, Manthani, Karimnagar District. 4 The Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 5 The Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Sulthanabad, Karimnagar District. 6 The Food Inspector, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of mandamus to declare seizure of rice, pulses, sugar and cooking oil through panchanama, dated 05.06.2009 from the petitioner’s shop pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as illegal. At the hearing, Sri V.Ravikiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the food grains license obtained by the petitioner expired on 31.03.2009 and an application filed by it for renewal of food grains license is pending. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in seizing the above said stock. He further submitted that appropriate directions may be given to the respondents not to sell the seized stock pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. In my considered view, the writ petition is premature, because the petitioner is entitled to move the respondents for appropriate directions pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that it approached the respondents in this regard. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the case at this stage. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 with appropriate application and on the petitioner filing such an application, respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law with reasonable expedition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.15008 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th JUNE, 2009. kvni