IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14542 of 2009 Between: M/s. Seshadri Dall Industries Rep. by Owner : B.Sridhar, S/o. B.N.Swamy R/o. 1-1-2/3a, CCI Colony, Tandur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Supply Officer ( Enforcement ) and his Team O/o. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 the Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Tandur, Tahsildar Officer, Tandur Village and Mandal Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of redgram, chura and husk worth Rs.49,20,300/- as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a dealer in food grains. It has obtained food grains dealer’s licence, which was valid up to 31-08-2008. The petitioner’s business premises was inspected by the Assistant Supply Officer (Enforcement) and his team on 12-07-2009 and seized the above mentioned commodities mainly on two grounds, namely; that the petitioner’s licence was not renewed beyond 31-08-2008 and stock registers were not maintained. Questioning the said seizure and initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to enquiry report dated 11-12-2008 submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement), Tandur to the District Supply Officer, Ranga Reddy District, wherein it is mentioned that with reference to the petitioner’s application, for grant of fresh licence in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 08-08-2008, he inspected the petitioner’s premises and that his enquiry revealed that the petitioner is proposing wholesale business in food grains and he examined the following documents. “1. Application in form ‘A’ duly filled. 2. Copy of permanent registration certificate No.138/B1/2005 dated 22-12-2003 3. Copy of the VAT registration No. TIN 28970145565 with effect from 1-4-2005 under A.P.VAT Act, 2005 obtained by the firm. 4. The original challan for Rs.600/- remitted in Government treasury by the firm vide challan No.9134 dated 29-08-2008 towards licence fee. 5. The firm deposited Rs.1000/- under NSC in the name of firm. 6. Affidavit executed on Rs.10/- stamp paper stating that the firm will abide by the conditions of the licence and the same is enclosed in original. 7. Copy of sale deed document No.2483/03 dated 10-11- 2003.” The Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement), in his report, recommended for grant of wholesale licence. Under Clause (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, every application for a licence or renewal thereof shall be made to the licensing authority in form A as prescribed in Schedule-III to this Order. The first proviso to the said clause envisages that where an application for issue of fresh licence has been received by the Licensing Authority and if the application is not rejected or returned for valid reasons within a month, the applicant can thereafter commence business and continue till such time his application for grant of licence is rejected. The petitioner specifically averred that its application for grant of fresh licence has not been rejected so far nor any communication was sent to the petitioner on the status of its application. From the enquiry report of the Deputy Tahsildar (Enforcement) referred to above, it is clear that the petitioner’s application for grant of fresh licence was in order. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned proviso to Clause (3), prima faice, the petitioner is entitled to carry on the business so long as its application was not expressly rejected by the respondents. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to complete the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act and pass an appropriate order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Till then, the seized stock shall not be sold. The petitioner shall be permitted to carry on the business, unless an order was passed rejecting its application for grant of fresh license. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos. 19607 and 19068 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st July, 2009 vrn