THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.5686 OF 2007 DT.18.11.2010 Between: M/s.Bedi Anjaneya Swamy Traders and Dalmil, represented by its Proprietor Asam Rajgopal Reddy, Kadapa District. …………..Petitioner Vs The Inspector, Vigilance and Enforcement Dept., Tirupati and two others. ……………..Respondents O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed to declare the proceedings of the second respondent/District Collector, Kadapa District, in reference No.1 (2)/764/2007, dated 09.03.2007, wherein the interim disposal of the seized stock was ordered on certain irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner as illegal. On 23.02.2007 the Inspector, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Tirupati, along with his staff inspected the dall-mill of the petitioner and on physical verification, found that there were certain variations between the stock register and other registers. On a report submitted to the said effect by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Jammalamadugu, alleging violation of the conditions laid in APSCD (I & D) order, 1982 and the Government Orders, proceedings under Section 6 (A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated and pending the same, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 09.03.2007 directed interim disposal of the seized stock and directed the Tahsildar, Proddatur, to take possession of the seized stock and dispose of the same in the open auction. The said order is passed as an interim measure, subject to issuance of final orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Heard both the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are not correct. The inspecting staff did not verify the stocks nor weighed the same properly and that the alleged variations are made only for statistical purpose. He further submits that the stock was seized in a mechanical manner and that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the enquiry initiated under Section 6-A of the Act. He further submits that the impugned order directing disposal of the stock is not justified. The learned Government Pleader submits that since proceedings have been initiated under Section 6-A of the Act, the petitioner can as well establish his case in the said enquiry. I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. However, by order dated 22.03.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.72500 of 2007, this court granted stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order and in view of the said interim order, it is stated that stock has not been sold in the auction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not appropriate to direct the disposal of the stock at this point of time. Instead, the enquiry, which is said to be pending, can be directed to be completed within a time frame. In the circumstances, the second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry, which has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Act, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending disposal of the enquiry, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI J., Dt.18.11.2010 tjs