IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10125 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vinayaka Rice Working Company, rep. by its Managing Partner, Chandaluri Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Venkata Gurunadham, R/o. Pappu Bazar, Vinukonda, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur. 2 The Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare seizure of 400 bags of rice of 50 kgs each, Q. 4,260.86 kgs of Paddy, Q. 213.02 kgs of Rice and Q. 122.67 kgs of Broken Rice, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. On the basis of the inspection made on 19.03.2008 by respondent No.2 and other officials, the above mentioned stocks of the petitioner were seized and proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated by respondent No.1. The petitioner claimed to have made an application on 24.03.2008 before respondent No.1 seeking release of the seized stock pending disposal of proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far, the said application has not been disposed of. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very seizure itself is illegal and hence, respondent No.1 ought to have released the seized stock. I have considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are pending before respondent No.1, I feel, it is not appropriate to give any finding on the validity or otherwise of the seizure. As the petitioner’s application for release is stated to be pending, I am of the view that it would be in the interests of justice that the said application be disposed of. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the application said to have been filed by the petitioner on 24.03.2008 for release of the seized stock. If respondent No.1 received such an application, he shall dispose of the same within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, respondent No.1 shall not sell the seized stock. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.13307 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st MAY, 2008 Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. B/o kvni