IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15281 of 2009 Between: Devunuri Rajanna and another. … Petitioner And: The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) Karimnagar District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Venu Madhav. Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated Nil-7-2009 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he directed disposal of various commodities, such as rice, sugar, pulses and oils of different varieties, seized from the petitioners, allegedly worth about Rs.2,77,800/-, in public auction. For the disposal of the Writ Petition, the facts in detail need not be recorded. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 did not consider their application for release of the seized stocks, before passing the impugned order. In view of this plea of the petitioners regarding non-consideration of their application, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies was directed to seek instructions from the respondents whether the petitioners submitted their application for release of the seized stocks before the impugned order was passed. On instructions she submitted that such an application was in fact filed by the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no reference to the petitioners’ application for release of the seized stocks. The orders passed by respondent No.1, under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), are quasi- judicial in nature and as they vitally affect the rights and interests of the parties, it is incumbent upon him to consider the applications, if any made, before passing the orders. Since the petitioners’ application for release of the seized stocks was not considered by respondent No.1, before passing the impugned order, the said order cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, order dated Nil-7-2009 passed by respondent No.1, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition, is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioners, on merits, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-7-2009 KVNI/MNR