IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos.1021, 1023, 1024 and 1029 of 2009 WRIT PETITION No.1021 of 2009 Between: M/s. Mahendra Rice Industry, Shettipalem, Vemulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District, A. Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Manchukonda Narsimha, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 49 Years, R/o. Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The District Supply Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Order dt. 21.1.2009 in No.CS1/1011/08 of the 2nd respondent herein, which was issued with the approval of the 1st respondent herein, to the extent it is against the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Control Orders made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein to accept back guarantee for the equivalent amount of confiscation order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.CS1/1011/2008 dated 29.12.2008 till the disposal of the Crl. Appeal No.5 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge at Nalgonda and release the earlier bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner herein for the 15% value of the total seized stocks forthwith and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES WRIT PETITION No.1023 of 2009 Between: M/s. Maharshi Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Shettipalem, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, A Registered Company, represented by its Managing Director, Gudipati Srinivas S/o. Mallaiah Aged about 45 years, R/o. Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The District Supply Officer, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Order dt. 21.1.2009 in No.CS1/1013/08 of the 2nd respondent herein, which was issued with the approval of the 1st respondent herein, to the extent it is against the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Control Orders made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein to accept back guarantee for the equivalent amount of confiscation order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.CS1/1013/2008 dated 29.12.2008 till the disposal of the Crl. Appeal No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge at Nalgonda and release the earlier bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner herein for the 15% value of the total seized stocks forthwith and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES WRIT PETITION No.1024 of 2009 Between: M/s. Miryalguda Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., A Registered Company, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. R/o. Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Nalgonda District Nalgonda. 2 The District Supply Officer Nalgonda Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Order dt. 21- 01-2009 in No.CS1/1020/08 of the 2nd respondent herein, which was issued with the approval of the 1st respondent herein, to the extent it is against the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Control Orders made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein to accept bank guarantee for the equivalent amount of confiscation order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.CS1/1020/2008 dt. 29-12-2008 till the disposal of the Crl. Appeal No.7 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Prl. Sessions Judge at Nalgonda and release the earlier bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner herein for the 15% value of the total seized stocks forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES WRIT PETITION No.1029 of 2009 Between: M/s. Mahateja Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., Shettipalem, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, A Registered Company, represented by its Managing Director, Manchukonda Narsimha, S/o. Mallaiah Aged about 49 years, R/o. Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The District Supply Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Order dt. 21.1.2009 in No.CS1/1010/08 of the 2nd respondent herein, which was issued with the approval of the 1st respondent herein, to the extent it is against the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Control Orders made thereunder and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein to accept back guarantee for the equivalent amount of confiscation order passed by the 1st respondent in Case No.CS1/1010/2008 dated 29.12.2008 till the disposal of the Crl. Appeal No.6 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge at Nalgonda and release the earlier bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner herein for the 15% value of the total seized stocks forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Common order: In all these Writ Petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common Order. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners seek mandamus declaring the orders dated 21.01.2009 passed by the second respondent in various proceedings, which were issued with the approval of the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and Control Orders made thereunder. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents while alleging that the petitioners failed to supply levy rice seized their entire stocks. However, the stocks were released by the respondent authorities on the petitioners furnishing Bank Guarantee for 15% of the value of the total seized stocks. Thereafter, 6-A proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were disposed of confiscating 10% of the value of the excess quantity of rice sold by the petitioners. This Court, on 28.01.2009, while admitting the writ petitions, granted interim directions to the respondents to accept the bank guarantees for the equivalent amount of confiscation orders passed by the first respondent and to release the earlier bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners for 15% of the value of the total seized stocks forthwith. Now, it is the case of the petitioners that after passing the impugned orders, they have furnished bank guarantees of 10% of the value of excess quantity of rice to the satisfaction of the respondents. Under those circumstances, in fact, the writ petition has become infrucuous. However, it is the further grievance of the petitioners that the said bank guarantees of 10% furnished by them are sought to be encashed by the respondents without waiting for the result of the criminal appeals, which are pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda . Under those circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents not to invoke the bank guarantees till the disposal of the stay petitions filed by the petitioners along with the appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 6-C of the Act before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 04.03.2009 va