IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12376 of 2008 Between: Sri Sai Rama Traders, Chilakapally Village, Balijipeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Rep. by its Proprietor R.Eswar Rao S/o.Gunnaiah, aged about 45 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Vizianagaram. 2 The Tahsildar, Balijipeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in seizing 602.60 Quintals of Paddy, 402.00 Quintals of Broken Rice, 49.50 Quintals of Rice and 3.50 Quintals of Black Gram on 3-5-2008 of the petitioner from the Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill, Chilakalapally Village, Balijipeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District and the action of the 1st respondent in initiating proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act vide his R.C.No.108/2008 G6 dated 3-6-2008 which was served to the petitioner on 8-6-2008 as illegal, and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the stocks seized by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The Tahsildar, Balijipeta Mandal, along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Vizianagaram, inspected Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill on 3.5.2008, which is being run by the petitioner. On physical verification irregularities were noticed in the maintenance of accounts and variation in the stocks between the physical availability and as reflected in the stock registers, beyond the permissible limits. A case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) has been registered against the petitioner. By an order dated 4.6.2008, the 1st respondent while rejecting the petitioner’s request for releasing the seized stocks on furnishing bank guarantee, further directed that the seized stocks of paddy, broken rice, rice and black gram be sold through open auction and that the sale proceeds be kept in revenue deposit pending finalization of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The petitioner challenges the initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, on the ground that he is not a trader liable to regulation by any Control Order and therefore the provisions of the Act have no application and alternatively on the ground that should the proceedings of a Control Order be applicable, even so the variation in the stocks is within the permissible limits. Above are issues to be determined finally in the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner also alleges that the order of the 1st respondent bearing Rc.No.108/2008/G6 dated 4.6.2008 to the extent it directs ad- interim sale of the seized stocks pending finalization of the case under Section 6-A of the Act, is arbitrary and unwarranted. The commodities seized, as already noted, are paddy, broken rice and black gram, which are not perishable commodities and no expediency in the public interest is also made out, justifying the ad-interim sale of these commodities, pending finalization of the case under Section 6-A of the Act. The discretion under Section 6-A (2) of the Act is therefore not rationally exercised by the 1st respondent. On the analysis above, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, by declaring the order of the 1st respondent dated 4.6.2008 to the extent it directs the ad-interim sale of the seized commodities as illegal and directing the 1st respondent to forbear from disposing of the stocks of the seized commodities pending final orders under Section 6-A of the Act. The 1st respondent-primary authority shall also pass final orders under the provisions of the Act, expeditiously and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The reasoned decision of the 1st respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. In the circumstances of the case however, there shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 16.6.2008 Note: CC as soon as possible Bo cvm