IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20759 of 2008 Between: Potnuru Sahadev, S/o. Venkatappadu, of Sri Venkata Lakshmi Modern Rice & Ground Nut Oil Mill, Pakivalasa Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies Department, Srikakulam. 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam 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 appropriate Writ, or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in SR No. 274/2008 S5 dated 16- 9-2008 of the 2nd Respondent in refusing to release the seized stock belonging to the petitioner on 25-8-2008 and instructing the 3rd respondent to dispose oﬀ the seized stock as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and unsustainable and direct the respondent to forbear from taking steps for disposal of orconfiscation of seized stock and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20759 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be the Managing Partner of Sri Venkata Lakshmi Modern Rice & Ground Nut Oil Mill running under a valid licence at Pakivalasa Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. On 25.08.2008, an inspection was conducted by the ﬁrst respondent, the District Supply Oﬃcer, Civil Supplies Department, Srikakulam and diﬀerent quantities of paddy, rice, broken rice and bran were seized from the petitioner’s Mill under a panchanama alleging variations in the stock register and the ground balances. Pursuant thereto conﬁscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated. Immediately thereafter the petitioner made an application seeking release of the seized stock. However, the second respondent, the District Collector, Srikakulam by order dated 16.09.2008 rejected the request of the petitioner for release of the seized stocks and ordered sale of the said stock through public auction. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.09.2008, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned seizure is arbitrary and illegal and at any rate there is absolutely no justiﬁable reason to refuse release of the seized stock, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies while placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in V. NAGENDRA RAO & CO. v. STATE OF A.P .[1] contended that the second respondent – District Collector had rightly ordered sale of the seized stock. In Nagendra Rao’s case (1 supra), after considering all the relevant provisions, the Supreme Court held that the Collector has to form an opinion if the goods seized are of one or other category mentioned in Section 6-A(2) and once he comes to conclusion that they fall in one of the categories mentioned in the sub-section then he has no option but to direct their disposal or selling of in the manner provided. In the instant case, as noticed above the stocks were seized only on 25.08.2008 and absolutely no case was made out to show that the said stock was subject to speedy and natural decay or it was otherwise expedient in public interest to dispose of the stocks by public auction. Particularly having regard to the nature of violations alleged against the petitioner, which prima facie appear to be technical violations, instead of directing sale of the seized stock through public auction, the second respondent ought to have completed the enquiry itself following due process of law. However, the rejection of the petitioner’s request for release of the seized stock does not warrant interference and it is suﬃce if the sale is stayed till the disposal of the enquiry. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to complete the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be stay of sale of the stocks seized. No order as to costs. ___________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 23.09.2008 va [1] AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 2663