THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.28688 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and at the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be owner of lorry bearing registration No.AP-26 X 1071. On 25-09-2011, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasham District, intercepted the vehicle and found carrying fertilizers, and seized the vehicle alleging that it was involved diverting fertilizers from Prakasham District to Nellore District, thus, contravened Clause 12 of the Fertilizer Control order, 1985. A report, dated 25-09-2011, to that effect was laid by the Mandal Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Lingasamudram, before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Prakasham District. The 1st respondent herein, who took cognizance of the same, issued a show cause notice, dated 14-10-2011, under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner being the owner of the lorry approached the 1st respondent seeking release by filing an application on 05-10-2011. Since the said application did not receive attention, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the said lorry as illegal. Admittedly, the vehicle was seized on 25-09-2011 while transporting fertilizers. Whether the petitioner has contravened the conditions of the Fertilizer Control Order, as alleged, and whether he is liable for any action, are matters for enquiry, in respect of which, a show-cause notice has already been issued. Insofar as the vehicle is concerned, even if it is ultimately found that the vehicle is liable for confiscation, as per Second Proviso to Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the owner of the vehicle has to be given an option to pay in lieu of confiscation fine not exceeding the market price of the essential commodities. In view of the said proviso and in view of the fact that the detention of the vehicle is not required for the purpose of conducting enquiry, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the application for release of the vehicle. In the instant case, the vehicle was seized on 25-09-2011 and I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by detaining any longer. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent-Joint Collector to release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP-26 X 1071, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum equivalent to the value of the seized stock to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent and on filing an undertaking that the vehicle will not be alienated or otherwise encumbered and produce as and when required. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24-10-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.28688 of 2011 Dated 24-10-2011