THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32859 of 2010 Dated 01st February, 2011 Between: B.Suresh …Petitioner And The Govt.of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Sitaram Counsel for respondents: GP for Agriculture The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 17.07.2010, of respondent No.2. The petitioner is a distributor of seeds. On the report submitted by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Guntakal, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated for the alleged contravention of Clause-3 of the Seed Control Order, 1983. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Roc.No.B6/1865/2010, dated 17.07.2010, which is purported to be a show-cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act. This proceeding is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue such notice as it is only the Collector (respondent No.3) who has such power and jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. After the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, I find force in the plea raised by the petitioner. Section 6-A of the Act provides for confiscation of the essential commodities. The said provision empowers the Collector of the District or the Presidency town, in which the essential commodities are seized, to exercise the powers conferred by Section 6-A of the Act for confiscation of the essential commodities. Section 2(ii-a) of the Act defines ‘Collector’ as including an Additional Collector and such other officer, not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture is not able to point out any proceedings, whereby respondent No.2 is authorised to act as Collector in terms of the above noted definition. Therefore, respondent No.2 is denuded of the jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice proposing confiscation of the essential commodities as envisaged by Section 6-A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.3 from exercising his power under Sections 6- A and 6-B of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 28.12.2010, granted by this Court, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.41752 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st February, 2011 VGB