THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.13911 of 2006 DATED: 01-10-2007. Between: Akkala Thirupathi .. PETITIONER And The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Karimnagar and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.13911 of 2006 ORDER: The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned memo No.G3/110/2006, dated 16.03.2006, issued by the 1st respondent refusing to release 40 quintals of rice seized by the 2nd respondent as illegal, unjust and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to release 40 quintals of rice forthwith. 2. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 10.07.2006 and granted interim direction as prayed for in W.P.M.P.No.17320 of 2006. 3. The impugned memo, dated 16.03.2006, reads as hereunder: No.G3/110/2006 Office of the Collector (CS) Karimnagar, dt.16-03-2006. M E M O Sub: Civil Supplies – Srirampur mandal – Vennampally village – Contravention of provisions of control orders – The State through the MRO Srirampur Vs Sri T. Nagabhushanam, F.P. Shop dealer, Shop No.4320 and others – Diversion of PDS rice into black market – Seizure of 40-00 qtls., Rice along with Tractor – Case filed U/s.6-A of E.C. Act – Reg. Ref: 1) MRO Srirampur Lr.No.A/292/2006 dated 8-3-2006. 2) Petition of Sri Akkala Thirupathi R/o Vennampalli dated 10.3.2006. * * * In the reference 2nd cited, Sri Akkala Thirupathi stated to be labour of Vennampalli village, Srirampur Mandal has filed a petition stating that the 40-00 qtls., Rice so seized in the case is their own and they got under food for work programme and requested for release of the stock in their favour. The seized rice was got inspected by the Asst. Manager (Technical) APSCSC Ltd., Karimnagar who has identified as AP Rice i.e. PDS Rice. Hence, the claim of Sri Akkala Thirupathi for release of rice is not considered when the seized rice was certified as A.P. Rice. for Collector (CS) Karimnagar To Sri Akkala Thirupathi R/o Vennampalli village, Srirampur Mandal. 4. In the light of the interim direction made by this Court, no further orders are required to be passed for the present. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. No order as to costs. _________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J 1st October, 2007. IBL