THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13106 of 2010 Dated:11.06.2010 Between: Bomma Nagalaxmi. ...Petitioner And The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13106 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a licensed dealer in essential commodities as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. She allegedly purchased Grade-A paddy of Rabi and Kharief seasons from the agriculturists. She discharged her obligation of giving 75% levy to Food Corporation of India, and kept 25% of the total stock purchased for sale in the open market for the year 2009-2010. Her business premises was inspected by the fourth respondent and other Officials allegedly at 4:00 am on 02.06.2010. The following quantities were seized. 282 quintals of common variety of rice, 678.25 quintals of fine rice, 147.50 quintals of PDS rice, 69 quintals of raw rice, 39.20 quintals of samba variety rice, 285.25 quintals of broken rice and JGL variety paddy of 835.10 quintals. The allegation was that there were stock variations in the ground balance in the stock registers. The petitioner immediately made an application praying for release of the seized stock. The same is pending. In the meanwhile, the first respondent to whom a report was submitted issued a show cause notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act). At that stage, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition assailing the very seizure of the stock and the inaction of the District Collector in disposing of the application for interim release of the seized stock. Counsel for the petitioner relies on N.Nagendra Rao & Company v State of Andhra Pradesh[1], Dharni Trading Company v State of Andhra PRadesh[2] and Samudrala Venkateswar Rao v Government of India[3] and submits that the stock variation is within the permissible limits, and therefore, the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are arbitrary and without jurisdiction. This Court at this stage is not inclined to go into the merit of the contention. When the show cause notice is issued under Section 6B of the Act, it is always open to the petitioner to raise all contentions which are raised in the affidavit accompanying the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. The petitioner may submit explanation to the show cause notice under Section 6B of the Act immediately along with necessary evidence, if any. After receiving the same, first respondent shall issue a notice of hearing and pass appropriate orders under Section 6A of the Act within a period of three weeks thereafter. It shall also be open to the petitioner to pursue her application filed on 05.06.2010 for interim release of the seized stock. The writ petition with the above observations stands disposed of accordingly. In case the first respondent is of considered opinion that the seized stock should be sold under Section 6A(2) of the Act, needless to mention that as per the decision of this Court in A.Siva Reddy v District Collector, Kurnool[4], a notice shall be issued to the petitioner before passing any order for interim sale. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.06.2010 vs [1] (1994) 6 SCC 205 [2] (1974) 2 APLJ 166 [3] 2002 (6) ALD 389 [4] 2008 (6) ALD 1 (DB)