The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.20055 of 2010 Order: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks declaration, by way of Mandamus, that the action of the respondents in seizing the rice, broken rice and brawn, belonging to him, from his leased premises bearing No.6-122, Clock Tower Center, Vetapalem, and initiating the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that on 11-06-2010, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein inspected the above-mentioned premises and seized 440 bags of rice (each 25 kgs), 44 bags of broken rice, 70 bags of brawn and 6 bags of broken rice (each 50 kgs) on the ground that the same was stored illegally without possessing valid license under the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities (Licencing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’), which is framed under the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6-04 cents covered by Survey Nos.426/1, 426/2, 426/3, 343/2 and 161/2 of Karemchedu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, and that the rice seized was milled from out of the paddy produced therefrom and that the same was stored in the abovesaid leased premises. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although he filed an application seeking release of the seized stock on 14-06- 2010 itself, but without passing any orders thereon, the respondents have initiated the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and are proceeding therewith. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that respondent No.1- Collector (CS), Ongole, Prakasam District, before whom the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, has already passed an order for sale of the seized stock in public auction. The claim made by the petitioner that the stock seized is his agricultural produce is a mater to be enquired into by respondent No.1- competent authority in the proceedings pending under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, this Court cannot go into the legality or otherwise of such a claim at this stage. Inasmuch as the seizure was effected 11-06-2010 and as the enquiry is still pending before respondent No.1, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent No.1 to complete the proceedings pending before him under Section 6-A of the Act, after considering the explanation, if any filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from today. It is also made clear that proceedings as regards the sale of the seized stock shall be subject to the outcome of the orders passed in the Section 6-A proceedings. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 16th August, 2010 lur