The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.20174 of 2010 Order: Petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration, by way of Mandamus, that the action of the respondent in seizing the rice and his auto bearing No.AP 16 TX 0278, on 11-04-2010, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses certain agricultural lands in Munagala and Chillakallu Villages of Nalgonda District and that he stored 52.50 quintals of rice in the house of his relative viz., Chandrupatla Ramu. It is his grievance that the Vigilance and Enforcement officials, Vijayawada, have seized the said rice on the allegation that he purchased the same from fair price shop dealers and the cardholders thereof at lower price for selling the same at higher rates. Hence, the present Writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if the above-said allegation levelled against the petitioner is taken to be true, purchase of rice meant for Public Distribution System either from the cardholders or from the fair price shop dealers is not in contravention of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Act’) and as such, no proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) can be initiated against the petitioner on that ground. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents that the petitioner is purchasing rice, which is meant for Public Distribution System, and is doing business therein without any license and thereby, he has contravened the provisions of the A.P.Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. Whether the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the aforesaid Control Order or not is a matter to be enquired into by the competent authority in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Inasmuch as it is stated that the seized commodity is rice meant for Public Distribution System, I do not find any reason to order release of the same before completion of enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. Inasmuch as the seizure was effected on 11-04- 2010 and as it is brought to the notice of the Court that no proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have yet been initiated, I deem it appropriate to issue direction to respondent No.2 to initiate the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and, after giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case, complete the same within a period of two months from today. As it is stated that the seized rice is still in tact, the respondents are directed not to sell the same till completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any damages if the said rice gets damaged during the pendency of such proceedings. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 18th August, 2010 Note: CC in two days. (B/o) lur