THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4867 of 2010 03.3.2010 Between Piridi Appanna, S/o.Late Suri … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4867 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is statedly an agriculturist of Amiti Village of Therlam Mandal in Vizianagaram District. On 07.2.2010, he was transporting 22 tons of paddy to Sri Rama Tulasi & Company and Sri Lakshmi Satyanarayana Paddy Mill, Kakinada, for selling. The lorry bearing No.AP 16 TX 9338 transporting paddy, was checked on 08.2.2010 at Tollgate, Aganampudi in Visakhapatnam District. As per the mediators report, the following irregularities were found. 1. Paddy was transported on 07.2.2010, but the date was noted on the way bill as 07.1.2010. 2. It was mentioned in the way bill and Rythu Voucher that 22 Tons of paddy is being transported, but as per weigh bridge receipt 22680 Kgs or 22.680 Tons (31880 – 9200 empty lorry weight). As such there is excess of 680 Kgs of paddy was noted. 3. In the Rythu voucher it was noted that paddy was purchased for Rs.800/- per Quintal. But as per the minimum price fixed by the Government is Rs.1,000/- per Quintal. The second respondent drafted mediators report and submitted the records to the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, for initiating action under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (the Act). Petitioner also filed an application on 13.2.2010 praying for release of seized paddy. The same is yet to be considered by the Joint Collector. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed challenging the very seizure. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the irregularities pointed out are trivial in nature and that there is non-application of mind on the part of second respondent. Nextly he contends that the petitioner himself is an agriculturist marketing his farm produce and, therefore, any violation alleged is without any substance. He also submits that petitioner is willing to furnish Bank Guarantee (BG) if the entire stock seized is released. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s.Geetha Gen. Merchants, Vikarabad v Inspector of Police[1] and submits that when the essential commodities are seized for alleged violation of Section 6A of the Act or any Control Order made under Section 3 of the Act, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot order release of the commodities seized. As the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are yet to be completed, it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on the merits of the case. Insofar as interim release is concerned, as the petitioner is willing to furnish BG, his request may be considered by the Joint Collector himself while passing orders on the application made by petitioner for interim release of the paddy. Further, if for any reason the Joint Collector is not willing to order such interim release, the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act may be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then the seized paddy shall not be sold. If ultimately the petitioner succeeds before first respondent, the entire stock may be released to him. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. _____________ March 03, 2010. (V.V.S.RAO,J) NOTE: Dispatch order copy by 05.3.2010. (By order) YS [1] AIR 2000 AP 248