IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32734 of 2010 Between: Kooragayala Mallesham & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Collector (CS), Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32734 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not returning the bank guarantee to the petitioners in spite of judgment dated 26.02.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2010, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Certain food grains of the petitioners were the subject matter of proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). When the said food grains were sought to be sold in public auction, this Court directed their release, subject to the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs vide its order dated 25.08.2009 in Writ Petition No.17738 of 2009. Subsequent thereto, proceedings under Section 6A of the Act ended against the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent confiscating the seized stock, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2010, which was allowed by the aforementioned judgment of the Sessions Court, Karimnagar and the confiscated food grains were directed to be released. After the said judgment, the petitioners made representations to the respondent for release of bank guarantee. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though substantial time has elapsed, the respondent has not returned the bank guarantee. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, stated that the respondent was contemplating to question the judgment of the criminal Court by initiating appropriate proceedings and that no such proceedings have been initiated so far. In my opinion, as a consequence of the petitioners succeeding in the proceedings under Section 6A, they are entitled to get back the bank guarantee furnished by them during the pendency of Section 6A proceedings. The respondent cannot withhold the bank guarantee on the purported ground of contemplation of further proceedings. As more than eight months had elapsed from the time of disposal of the criminal appeal in favour of the petitioners, interests of justice require that respondent shall return the bank guarantee to the petitioners. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to return the bank guarantee to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.41597 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposal of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.12.2010 ES