HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19883 of 2010 Date: August 11, 2010 Between: Parvathaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, aged 50 years, Proprietor of M/s.Bhaskara Fertilizers and Pesticides, D.No.19/70-1, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department), Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad, and three others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Bhaskara Fertilizers and Pesticides, which is being run in the premises bearing No.19/70-1, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District, has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus questioning order dated 05-08-2010 passed in E.C.P.No.514/2010, by the second respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District. The petitioner was granted licence to deal in fertilizers under Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, a Control Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’.) His business premises was inspected by the fourth respondent and on the ground that there are variations in stock, available stock was seized and given custody to one Sri Y. Venkaiah Rao, S/o. M/s.Vijaya Sai Corporation, Hanuman Junction Road, Nuzvid. Pursuant thereto, seizure report was submitted to the second respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, who is the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. By the impugned order, the second respondent-Joint Collector ordered disposal of the seized stock under the supervision of the Mandal Agricultural Officer/Asst.Director, Agriculture, Nuzvid and to remit the sale proceeds in Revenue Deposits. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no variation in the stock as alleged and certain stock, which was not sold, also was taken into consideration during seizure. It is pleaded by the petitioner that instead of selling the stock, proceedings, pending under Section 6-A of the Act itself, ought to have been disposed of. In this case, there are certain allegations against the petitioner. In view of the allegations, the matter needs to be enquired into by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. When enquiry proceedings are pending before the competent authority, this court cannot examine whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true or not and record a definite finding. As much as the commodities in question are fertilizers, there is no illegality in the direction issued by the second respondent by the impugned order to dispose of the said commodities, in view of their perishable nature and their immediate requirement to the needy farmers in the current season. If the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings pending under Section 6-A of the Act before the competent authority, he can get back the amount realized on sale of commodities seized. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent-Joint Collector, the competent authority, to finalize the proceedings pending under Section 6-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 11, 2010 MRR