IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22933 of 2008 Between: Smt. K. Saritha, W/o. Vivekananda Reddy, R/o. Gurugumalli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Regional Enforceemnt & Vigilance Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Asst. Grain Purchasing Authority, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in seizing the petitioner's lorry bearing No. AP 27 X 2719, under the cover of the panchanama dt. 12- 9-2008 and the consequential order in Proceedings No. Roc CS-1/196/ECA/2008 dated 9-10-2008 passed by the 1st respondent that directing the petitioner to produce the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1,52,400/- for release of the lorry, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of Essential commodities Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22933 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be the owner of Mini Lorry bearing Regn. No.AP-27-X-2719. It is stated that the said vehicle was engaged on hire basis on 11.09.2008 by M/s. Nagaraja Traders, Santhanuthalapadu for transporting the rice from Santhanuthalapadu to N. Rameswaram. However, during transit the vehicle was intercepted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Oﬃcers of West Godavari District on 12.09.2008 and the stock together with the vehicle were seized under a Panchanama on the allegation that there was variation in between the quantity mentioned in the invoice and the actual rice being transported without valid permit. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘E.C. Act’) were initiated for conﬁscation. That apart, the Transport Department also issued a Vehicle Check Report and imposed a ﬁne of Rs.2,430/-. That apart, the owner of the rice also paid commercial tax of Rs.18,048/- towards value of the diﬀerence raised as per the demand of the authorities. In spite of the same, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner has not been released. On the other hand, the 1st respondent by order dated 9.10.2008 directed the petitioner to produce Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,52,400/- for considering release of the vehicle pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the petitioner has paid the entire compounding fee to the Transport Department and that apart the market cess and commercial taxes were paid by the owner of rice, there is absolutely no justiﬁcation in continuing the proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act and that the same would amount to double jeopardy. Thus, a direction is sought by the petitioner to release the seized lorry without insisting on Bank Guarantee. I do not ﬁnd substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner since the conﬁscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act are entirely diﬀerent and distinct from the proceedings taken under the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by the Transport Authorities. In case it is established that there is contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Orders made under the Essential Commodities Act, the seized stock as well as the vehicle are liable to be conﬁscated under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. Pending such enquiry under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, the interim release of the vehicle cannot be ordered without any security. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in various decisions held that such release can be directed on furnishing Bank Guarantee to the value of the vehicle seized. Hence, the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent in directing release of the lorry as sought by the petitioner subject to the condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,52,400/- cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.10.2008 klp