IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16931 of 2008 Between: N. Veeraiah, S/o. Chenna Pullaih, R/o. H.No. 25/627, Srinivasanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Kurnool. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4 The Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool 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 or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in seizing the stocks and initiating proceedings Rc.DSO/CS1/E.C.No. 86/2008 under section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and agains the provisions of AP Rules (Licence, Storage & Regulaton) Control Order 2007 and consequently direct the respondents to release the 1031.70 quintals of pulses seized and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 16931 of 2008 Oral Order: The writ petition is filed inter alia challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 24-07-2008 directing interim sale of the seized commodities of 1031.70 quintals of Red Gram seized from the petitioner premises and in respect of which proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) has been initiated. After the institution of this writ petition, it would appear that the petitioner has applied to the 1st respondent for release of the seized commodities in his favour pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has passed orders releasing the seized commodities to the interim custody of the petitioner pending the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act on certain conditions. The petitioner also assails the very act of seizure of the stocks and initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. This challenge is based on certain factual assertions with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement under the applicable control orders and the Government orders for having a stock of 1031.70 quintals of Red Gram as also for the failure to reflect the physical stock of 1031.70 quintals in the registers. These factual areas are more appropriately determined in the substantive proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and are inappropriate for adjudication in the first instance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. The relief sought insofar as the challenge to the order of interim disposal i.e., of the 1st respondent dated 24-07-2008 does not survive in view of the interim release of stocks in favour of the petitioner. With regard to the challenge to the seizure per se, this Court relegates this issue to be considered in the substantive proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-08-2008 pvks