IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14778 of 2009 Between: Neo Seeds India Ltd. kA-24/25, APIE, Balanagar, Hyderabad. Rep by its Manager Sri G. Rameshwar Reddy, S/o. G. Narasimha Reddy, aged 50 years ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 3 Seed Inspector & Agriculture Officer, JDA Office Collectorate Compound Main Road, Nagaram Palem, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOKA SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : ORDER: Seizure of cotton seed of the value of about Rs.39.00 lac belonging to the petitioner was effected by the Department of Agriculture on the ground that the same was stored in an unauthorized godown. The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the said seizure. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture submitted that the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’) are pending. Sri K.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by illegally storing the cotton seed, the petitioner will not gain and that storing the cotton seed in an unauthorized godown is purely a technical violation. Unlike the essential commodities like rice, pulses and edible oil, cotton seeds do not fall under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Nevertheless, the petitioner will be liable for appropriate action in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. However, I do not find any justification for the respondents to detain the cotton seeds to the extent the petitioner wants to sell. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may be permitted to sell 50% of the seized stock by detaining balance 50% stock till completion of the pending proceedings. In my considered view, interests of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to take delivery of 50% of the seized stock subject to its furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the said stock as assessed by respondent No.3. The respondents shall complete the pending proceedings within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. Release of the part of the seized stock and furnishing of bank guarantee by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the pending proceedings. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.19394 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in two (2) days. kvni