HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.25450 of 2011 Date: 12-9-2011 Between R.Ravi Teja … Petitioner and The Collector (CS), Prakasam district at Ongole and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.25450 of 2011 Order: Petitioner has filed this writ petition to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Collector (CS), Prakasam district, Ongole, in Rc.CS1/6A/115/ 2011-2, dated 27-8-2011, as illegal. 2. By means of the said order, the 1st respondent has directed release of the lorry on the condition of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee pending enquiry under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. The petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP27Y-3357. It was found illegally transporting rice meant for Public Distribution System (PDS). The stock was, therefore, seized under a panchanama. The Assistant Supply Officer, Kandukur, laid a complaint dated 19-7-2011 under Section 6A of the Act before the 1st respondent to that effect and proceedings have been initiated by issuing a show-cause notice dated 27-8-2011. The petitioner states that he has already submitted explanation to the show-cause notice. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent by filing a petition dated 08-8-2011 seeking release of the vehicle pending enquiry. The 1st respondent, considering the entire matter including the fact that the rice was PDS rice whose worth is Rs.24,000/- the value of which in the open market is Rs.2,40,000/-, directed release of the vehicle on condition of the petitioner furnishing security for a sum of Rs.6,27,000/- . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the direction to submit bank guarantee for Rs.6,27,000/- is unreasonable as the worth of the PDS rice is only Rs.24,000/-. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order to that extent be modified by directing to furnish bank guarantee only for a sum of Rs.24,000/-. 5. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had no knowledge that the vehicle was transporting PDS rice and that the condition imposing bank guarantee is, therefore, not justified. In the alternative, the learned counsel also submits that the worth of the PDS rice is only Rs.24,000/-, therefore directing to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,27,000/- is unreasonable. 6. I am unable to accept the said contentions. Whether the petitioner transported rice having knowledge is a matter to be gone into in the enquiry initiated under Section 6A of the Act. No conclusive finding can be recorded at this stage on the said allegation. 7. Under the second proviso to Section 6A of the Act, owner of a vehicle, in the event of an order of confiscation, is entitled to be given an option to pay, in lieu of the confiscation of the vehicle, a fine not exceeding market price and the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. 8. Therefore, even if an option is exercised by the owner of a vehicle, he is liable to pay a fine basing on the market price of the commodity. In the instant case, even according to the 1st respondent, value of the rice in the open market is only Rs.2,40,000/- and it could well be justified if the 1st respondent has directed to furnish bank guarantee to the said amount. I would have considered modifying the order to the extent of furnishing bank guarantee to the said amount. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not inclined to accept the modification. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not committed the offence knowingly, therefore he has a chance of being absolved in the enquiry. As mentioned earlier, the complicity of the petitioner could be revealed only in the inquiry. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to modify the impugned order. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.25450 of 2011 12th September, 2011. (Ak)