IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.5023 of 2008 Between: Pallabothu Seethapathirao. … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector (CS), Guntur District, Guntur and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu. Counsel for the respondents: Asst.Govt.Pleader for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing any orders on the representation dated 20-8-2007 said to have been filed by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and, consequently, direct respondent No.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representation. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he is doing business in rice in the name and style of M/s.Varasai Traders in Narsaraopet Town; that on 2-7- 2007 he purchased 340 bags of rice from Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill of West Godavari District for a consideration of Rs.1,87,000/-; that 200 bags, out of the said rice quantity, was being transported through Way Bill No.16363098 to one Sandeep Trading Company, Maharashtra; that the Police of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station seized the said stock along with the lorry and registered Crime No.91 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; and that the petitioner was shown as accused No.2 in the said Crime. The petitioner further claimed that respondent No.2, after thorough enquiry, submitted report dated 3-7-2007 to the Collector (Civil Supplies), Guntur, wherein he opined that there is no scope for diversion of rice stocks from the Fair Price Shop dealers of Lingamguntla village, as alleged against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a representation on 20-8-2007 to respondent No.1 to act on the said report of respondent No.2 and release the stocks, he has not taken any action so far. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if the Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of representation dated 20-8-2007 made by the petitioner for release of the seized stock of rice in the light of report dated 3-7-2007 said to have been submitted by respondent No.2 to the Collector (Civil Supplies), Guntur, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.11-3-2008 Note: Issue CC in three days. (BO) MNR