IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1458 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/10/2008 in WP NO : 22933 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. K. Saritha, W/o. Vivekananda Reddy, R/o. Gurugumalli Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANT 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. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1458 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage. In this appeal, the appellant, who is unsuccessful in assailing the orders of seizure and imposing the condition for release of the vehicle involved in illegal transportation of rice, where the learned single Judge, did not ﬁnd favour with the submissions made by the petitioner in regard to quantum of bank guarantee to be furnished. Hence, the petitioner seeks to assail the correctness of the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. 22933 of 2008 dated 21.10.2008. The main submission is to the eﬀect that having regard to the quantity involved, ﬁxation of such an higher amount of bank guarantee i.e., Rs.1,52,400/- is totally unjust and it does not correlate to the offence alleged. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and in view o f pendency of proceedings under section 6 –A of the Act, this Court would not go into the merits nor can interfere with the discretion exercised by the authorities for release of the vehicle and normally it is only to the satisfaction of the authorities including the conditions which may be imposed for release of the vehicle. However, since it is submitted that the vehicle in question was seized quite some time back and same was purchased by raising loans and the contention of the petitioner that even if everything goes against the him, the quantum ﬁxed by the authorities is quite arbitrary, we leave it open to the appellant to ﬁle a fresh application raising all such contentions, which will be considered afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the appellant is permitted to ﬁle a fresh application within a period of one week and the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with l aw expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week thereafter. Subject to above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ R. KANTHA RAO,J DATE:12.11.2008 Note: Issue copy by tomorrow B/o tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1458 of 2008 Date: 12.11.2008