IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16163 of 2009 Between: M/s Vani Rice Traders Narsapur Rep.by its Proprietor S.Venkateswara Rao S/o Krishnamurthy Door No 12-2-3 Old Bazar Narasapur Town W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector W.G District Eluru 2 The Assistant Civil Supplies Officer Narsapur Divsion Narsapur W.G District 3 The Tahsildar Narsapur(M) W.G District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent authority in issuing proceedings in RoC No Cs 1/73/ECA/2009 dated 15-7- 2009 as arbitrary illegal null void and contrary to provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 19(1) of Constitution of India and to set asdie the same and consequently direct the respondent auhthorities to release the seized stocks of 99.50 quintals of Rice belonging to the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.16163 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is having valid licences issued under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Control Order, 2008 to carry on business in rice and is paying sales tax to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. While so on 11.06.2009 the second respondent along with mediators visited the business premises of the petitioner and seized 99.50 quintals of rice under the cover of a panchanama got drafted by the said mediators on the ground that the petitioner was not having valid licence. On the basis of the report furnished by the second respondent, the first respondent initiated proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act. 2 The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inspection took place on 11.06.2009 by which date the petitioner was having valid licence issued by the competent authority and though the petitioner tried to bring the said fact to the notice of the second respondent, the second respondent without looking into the said licence, seized the stock on the assumption that the petitioner was not having a valid licnece. According to the petitioner, except the said allegation that he does not possess a valid licence, there is absolutely nothing against him that he is carrying on any clandestine business etc. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Normally this court would not interfere in matters of this nature for the reason that these issues are to be decided by the Joint Collector who is ceased of the matter and holds an enquiry into the proceedings initiated under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act. But from a perusal of the copy of the licence produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the licence was renewed on 01.08.2008 and the same is valid for one year i.e. till 31.7.2009. The date of inspection as per the mediators report was dated 11.06.2009 and the allegation as per the mediators report is that the petitioner is not having valid licence to buy or sell the rice. This in my considered view appears to be incorrect in view of the copy of the licence as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a valid licence as on the date of inspection i.e. 11.06.2009. For this reason, this court is exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is interfering with the said seizure. 5 Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to release the stock of 99.50 quintals of rice seized from out of the business premises of the petitioner forthwith, however, on condition of the petitioner furnishing a third party security equivalent to the worth of the stock. The proceedings initiated under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act by the Joint Collector i.e. first respondent herein shall be completed at the earliest, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from today. No order as to costs. ---------------- 10.08.2009 C.C. in two days B/o kvsn