IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11907 of 2009 Between: Sri Shailam Kirana and General Stores, rep. by its Proprietor, T. Srinivas, S/o. Sri Shailam Husnabad Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector (CS), Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 3 The Assistant grains purchasing Officer, Incharge, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in seizing 96 quintals of sugar worth Rs.2,23,000/- from the petitioner-shop under Panchanama dated 06-06-2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The sole ground, on which the petitioner questioned the seizure, is that ‘Sugar’ is not included in the list of commodities under the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the 2008 Order’). The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions from the respondents, placed a copy of G.O.Ms.No.25 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department, dated 11-05-2009, which was published in Gazette No.234, dated 11-05-2009, of the Andhra Pradesh State Gazette wherein Clause 2 of the 2008 Order was amended by adding ‘Sugar’ as item (iv) in sub-clause G and consequently, various Clauses of the 2008 Order were amended to bring ‘Sugar’ within their fold. In view of the same, the petitioner’s plea, that the seizure is illegal and unauthorized, deserves to be rejected. Sri K.Venumadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner moved respondent No.2 for release of the seized stock by making an application on 20-06-2009. If such an application is filed, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the same before proceeding further with the sale of the seized stock. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.15343 and 15344 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25th June, 2009 LUR