IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.1207 of 2009 Between: Jana Venkata Bhaskar Rao. … Petitioner And The District Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari at Kakinada and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Nageswar Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In this Writ Petition, the only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not returning the bank guarantee furnished by him despite conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The civil supplies department seized certain quantities of rice-bran oil and pulses belonging to the petitioner and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated for confiscation of the seized stocks. Respondent No.2, the authority under Section 6-A of the Act, ordered for confiscation of the said stocks. In the appeal filed by the petitioner in the Sessions Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, questioning the said confiscation, the quantum was reduced from 16.65 quintals to 11.65 quintals. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Case No.307 of 2001 in this Court. By judgment dated 5-9-2005, this Court allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner applied to the respondents for return of the bank guarantee, which was furnished by him during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act before respondent No.2, but, neither the Bank guarantee has been returned to the petitioner, nor any order has been passed by the respondents. A perusal of the record shows that as far back as 1-4-2006 respondent No.1 addressed the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for his opinion on the representation of the petitioner for return of the bank guarantee. As the Bank guarantee was not returned, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the face of the above-mentioned undisputed facts, there is no justification for the respondents to withhold the bank guarantee when the petitioner completely succeeded in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. As no part of the petitioner’s stock was held liable for confiscation, the petitioner is entitled to take return of the bank guarantee furnished by him as a security for recovery of the value of the stock released in his favour during the pendency of Section 6-A proceedings in the event of ultimate confiscation of the seized stocks. As no such eventuality exists as of now in view of the judgment of this Court in the criminal revision petition, which set aside the confiscation order, the petitioner is entitled for return of the bank guarantee. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to return the original bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner to them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:18-6-2009 MNR