THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16952 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioners questioned the seizure of 24 quintals of rice along with van bearing No.KA 04 C 3475. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be the residents of Bendapalli and Korutla, Karimnagar District respectively, and petitioner No.3 is a resident of Korutla and claims to be the owner of the aforesaid van. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 have purchased 12 quintals of rice each from a rice dealer in Ichoda Village of Adilabad District for their domestic consumption purpose and transporting the same in the aforesaid vehicle, which belongs to petitioner No.3. On the ground that the said transportation was not supported by the documents, permit, licence etc., the said vehicle and the rice were seized by conducting a panchanama on 05.07.2010. It is their further case that as the seized quantity is less than 20 quintals, they need not get any licence and petitioners 1 and 2 have purchased the same for domestic consumption. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that whether petitioners 1 and 2 have purchased the quantity less than the permitted quantity as per the food grains licencing order or not is a matter for enquiry. It is further submitted that although it is the case of the petitioners that the seized quantity belongs to petitioners 1 and 2, the same is a matter for enquiry under the proceedings to be initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). It is also submitted that so far, no proceedings are initiated by the Joint Collector under Section 6-A of the Act and no show cause notice is issued. As the vehicle was seized on 05.07.2010 and under the second proviso to Section 6-A(1)(c) of the Act, there is an option provided to the owner of the vehicle to pay penalty equivalent to the value of the stock, which was being carried in the vehicle, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to initiate and complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending such proceedings, the seized commodity shall not be sold. At the same time, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle in question to petitioner No.3 on furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the seized commodity, which was transported in it, and such bank guarantee shall be subject to final orders to be passed by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. It is made clear that in the event of any damage to the seized commodity, petitioners 1 and 2 shall not be entitled to claim any damages, as the seized stock is not being sold at their instance. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th JULY, 2010. Note: issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. kvni