HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.5542, 5555 and 5562 of 2011 Date 07.03.2011 W.P.No.5542 of 2011 Between: Smt Swathi Naidu. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Anantapur and another. .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.5555 of 2011 Between: Meenakshi Naidu. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Anantapur and another. .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.5562 of 2011 Between: Smt Bhagya Lakshmi. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Anantapur and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.5542, 5555 and 5562 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since these three Writ Petitions raise common issues, they are heard and being disposed of together. I have heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. The petitioners are the owners of Dhal Mills in Tadipatri Town. On the basis of inspections of their respective mills by the inspecting officials, the stocks of red gram/bengal gram, as the case may be, were seized. On the report submitted by the inspecting officials, respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners filed applications for release of the seized stock. However, respondent No.1 has passed separate orders directing interim disposal of the seized stocks pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the facts contained in the panchanamas are taken on their face value, the only allegation is variation in stock which can be attributed to the fact that the stock is in the process and the quantity under process was not taken into consideration. In view of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6- A of the Act, it is not appropriate for this Court to render conclusive findings on the issues raised by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Prima facie while I find some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the seized stocks are sold pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the interests of the petitioners would be adversely affected. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 not to sell the seized stocks pending completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Respondent No.1 is further directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Section 6-A of the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the statement contained in the panchanamas that the seized stocks were in scattered condition and there is nothing available from the material filed by the petitioners which shows that the scattered stocks have been rearranged, respondents are directed to ensure that the seized stocks are rearranged in proper heaps and collect the expenses from the petitioners there for. As a sequel to disposal of the main petitions, WPMP.Nos.6887, 6901 and 6908 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07.03.2011 Note:Communicate the operative portion by Wire. bo usd