IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13409 of 2009 Between: 1 Thulluru Sreenivasulu @ Chiranjeevi, S/o. Thirupathi, r/o. Alliguntapalem Village, Kavali Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 2 Thulluru Sowdhamani, w/o. Srinivasulu, r/o. Alliguntapalem Village, Kavali Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, S.P.S.R.T Nellore District. 2 The Assistant Supply Officer, Kavali, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare seizure of 118 bags (67.42 quintals) of Nellore Jilakara paddy and the condition of bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioners for release of the seized stock, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be agriculturists owning lands in Survey Nos.1639/2, 1693 and 1762 of Alliguntapalem Village, Kavali Mandal, Nellore District. According to the petitioners, they have produced Jilakara variety of paddy and after harvesting, the paddy was stocked in kallam. While they were trying to sell the paddy, the same was seized by respondent No.2 and his staff and that the proceedings under Section 6- A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated by respondent No.1. The petitioners approached respondent No.1 for release of the seized stock. By order, dated 11.06.2009, the District Supply Officer, S.P.S.R. Nellore, communicated to the petitioners the order stated to have been passed by respondent No.1 directing release of the seized stock subject to their furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.62,700/-. A prima facie consideration of the facts on record and perusal of the material produced by the petitioners show that the petitioners appear to be agriculturists. The fact that the stocks were seized at the thrashing floor of agricultural fields itself prima facie shows that the paddy was produced by the petitioners in their agricultural lands. Therefore, the direction to furnish bank guarantee for the seized stock appears to be unreasonable and the same causes prejudice to the petitioners, who are agriculturists. Therefore, the impugned order is modified by directing the respondents to release the seized stock of 67.42 quintals of Nellore Jilakara paddy to the petitioners subject to their executing personal bonds. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17419 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. Before parting with this case, I felt it necessary to observe that respondent No.1 is a statutory authority, which is vested with the power to order for interim disposal of the seized stock and pass appropriate orders on the applications of its owners. Hence, it is his statutory obligation to pass an order in his own name. It is, therefore, not permissible to delegate this power to another officer permitting him to pass order in his name purporting to communicate the order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to take corrective steps in this regard in future. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni