HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21988 of 2010 Date : 03.09.2010 Between : M/s.Rayudu Enterprises, Nidadavole, West Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21988 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner is a dealer in fertilizers. His business premises was inspected by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Agricultural Officer, Nidadavole, on 11th of August 2010, who has verified the physically available stocks and the registers, which are required to be maintained under the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Having noticed variations in stocks when the book balances are compared with the actual ground balances, the available stocks of fertilizers worth Rs.8,98,159/- were seized and the seizure report was submitted to the 1st respondent- District Collector on 12th of August 2010. On 14th August 2010, there was a representation made by the petitioner for release of stocks on the ground that the allegation of variation in stocks was made without verifying the records and day-sales of that particular day. The District Collector, by the impugned order, dated 25th of August 2010, issued in Proceedings Roc.No.CS.I/111/ECA/ 2010, recording a finding that the seized stocks are subject to speedy and natural decay and also in the interest of farmers, ordered for interim disposal of stocks, in exercise of powers under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and directed the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Nidadavole and the Tahsildar, Nidadavole, to dispose of the seized stocks to the farmers, through a licensed dealer and deposit the sale proceeds in favour of the Joint Collector, West Godavari District. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has raised several grounds in the application filed before the 1st respondent-District Collector, without considering the same, the impugned orders are passed. It is submitted that as the inspection was made during the course of day-business, the sales, which were made during that day, were to be taken into consideration, but the respondents seized the stocks without proper verification of stocks and registers. Whether the petitioner has submitted appropriate explanation for the alleged variations in stocks, is a matter for inquiry while passing final orders under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. At the stage of interim disposal, detailed findings need not be recorded on the plea of the petitioner. As the seized commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay and as the said fertilizers are to be distributed to the needy farmers, the 1st respondent- District Collector has ordered for sale of the seized stocks. In any event, it is to be noted that sales are to be effected as per the prices fixed on the fertilizers and if the seized commodities are sold and the amounts are deposited to the account of the Joint Collector, same will be subject to the final orders to be passed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order, dated 25th August 2010, passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector in Roc.No.CS.I/111/ECA/2010, ordering the Mandal Agricultural Officer and the Tahsildar, Nidadavole, for disposal of seized stocks by way of sale to the farmers through a licensed dealer. However, as much as the seizure report is already filed by the 3rd respondent- Agricultural Officer, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-District Collector to complete the 6-A proceedings within a period of three months from today and the sale proceeds shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in 6-A proceedings. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd September 2010 ajr