IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10672 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Siva Priya Mini Modern Rice Mill Balaga, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. Rep by its Prop. Reddi Ram Murthy 2 Reddy Chiranjeevulu, S/o. Late Sivannarayana, R/o. H.No. 1-1/11-3, 2nd Ward, Balaga, Srikakulam Town and District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies Dept., Srikakulam. 3 The Tahsildar, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order, dated 01-05-2008 passed by the District Collector (CS) Srikakulam, whereby he directed sale of paddy of 4379.00 qtls., rice (unpolished) of 83.25 qtls., rice (polished) of 74.50 qtls., broken rice of 1.10 qtls., and brawn of 7.00 qlts seized from the first petitioner’s mill, as illegal. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. On the basis of inspection conducted on 25-04-2008, the above mentioned quantity of rice was seized and proceedings, under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), have been initiated. By order, dated 01-05-2008 the District Collector, Srikakulam, passed the impugned order. The District Collector directed sale of the seized stock on the ground that prima facie the petitioners were found in clandestine business by holding huge stocks of paddy and rice and that they are subject to speedy decay. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are non-traders and they have not violated any control order. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that since the petitioners were prima facie found indulging in hoarding the stocks, the District Collector, Srikakulam, exercised his power under Section 6A(2) of the Act and hence, the same does not deserve to be interfered with. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. Whether the petitioners indulged in violation of any of the control orders or not is required to be adjudicated in the pending proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Prima facie the stock seized viz. paddy and rice are not subject to decay or if perishable the pending proceedings are disposed of within a reasonable time. In this view of the matter, the order, dated 01-05-2008, whereby the seized stock was directed to be sold, is set aside and the District Collector, Srikakulam, is directed to dispose of the proceedings, pending under Section 6A of the Act, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the seized stock shall be kept in the safe custody as may be directed by the District Collector, Srikakulam. It is made clear that if the stock was already sold, this order will not apply. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J) Dt:07.05.2008 Usd