IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3120 of 2008 Between: M/s. Venkateswara Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor V. Venkatesh S/o. Balaiah, R/o.16-11-511/4, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector (CS) Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle III, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent seizing the paddy, rice, broken rice and lorry bearing No.AP 22 V 2391 on 29.1.2008 illegally, improperly without any power or authority and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Looking to the development, which was taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, in our opinion, this petition need not be entertained. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order whereby his goods have been seized. The petitioner has questioned the validity of seizure of his goods. During the pendency of the petition an order under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 19-3-2008 has been passed. It is not in dispute that the said order can be challenged under Section 6-C of the Act before the appellate Court, namely, Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy. In view of the fact that as the order, which has been passed during the pendency of the petition is an appealable order, we need not go into the validity of the impugned order of confiscation as well as the seizure which is the subject matter of the petition. We do not think it necessary to reproduce the argument which the learned Advocate has advanced, as the final order passed under Section 6-A of the Act is an appealable order and it is open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the said order. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th March, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies