The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22068 of 2010 Date: 06-09-2010 Between: Grandhi Madhubabu ..... Petitioner AND The Joint Collector (CS Wing) Prakasam District, Ongole and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.I.Koti Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.CS1/6A/167/2010, dated 27-08-2010, issued by respondent No.1 to the extent that he has stipulated the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.60,000/- for release of the petitioner’s vehicle of TATA 207 Model bearing registration No.AP 27 Y 2074. I have heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. Perused the record. The above-mentioned vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized while it was being used for transporting 62 bags of rice, each weighing 50 kgs (31 quintals), which was allegedly meant for Public Distribution System (for short ‘PDS’). Proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), have been initiated wherein the petitioner has filed an application before respondent No.1 seeking interim release of the seized vehicle. The said application having been considered by respondent No.1, the impugned order has been passed. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under second proviso to Section 6-A (1) of the Act, the owner of the seized vehicle shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the availability of the said option, even in the event of confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle, he would have been liable to pay the sum of Rs.6,200/-, which was shown as the PDS subsidized rate. Having carefully considered this submission of the learned Counsel, I do not find any merit therein. Under the above-mentioned provision, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the market price of the seized commodity. Therefore, the subsidized rate of the rice meant for Public Distribution System is not relevant for the purpose of arriving at the market price of the seized commodity. The learned Counsel does not dispute that the market price of the seized commodity is Rs.62,000/-, as estimated by respondent No.1. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the condition imposed by respondent No.1 for release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner pending completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.28092 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 6th September, 2010 lur