IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16589 of 2008 Between: J. Raghuram, S/o. Bala Rangappa, Sri Vijaya Sai Baba Trades, Paddy & Rice Merchant, Mydukoor Road, Proddatur - 516 361. Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, V. Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 The Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor District. .....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, order or direction, essentially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the respondents and set aside the impugned order in proceeding No. D1/406/08, dt. 8-6-2008 to direct the 1st Respondent herein to release seized stock to me as the same is likely to get damage if improperly stored or kept, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may impose in this regard and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16589 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated.08-06-2008 under which pending enquiry under section.6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 the seized rice was directed to be sold through public auction. The petitioner, who claims that the seizure is arbitrary and illegal, contended that he is entitled for release of the seized stock. This court while directing rule nisi by order dated.31-07- 2008 ordered that the seized rice should not be disposed of until further orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Since the enquiry under Sec.6-A of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 is pending before the 2nd respondent, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to enter into the merits of the case and express any opinion as to the validity of the seizure. Sofar as the impugned order under which the seized stock was directed to be sold by public auction is concerned, keeping in view that the said order has not been implemented sofar and the enquiry is pending on the ﬁle of the 2nd respondent from June-2008 onwards, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the enquiry under Section.6-A of Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the impugned order dated.08-06-2008 shall not be given effect to and the seized stock shall not be sold. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 22.10.2008 *TSNR