THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.28743 of 2011 Between: M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Bran & Para Modern Rice Mill, Rep. by its Managing Partner PETITIONER And 1. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. V. Padmaja Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing No.AP-37-TA- 969. The Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Tanuku, West Godavari District, the 2nd respondent herein seized the said vehicle on 9.09.2011 when it was transporting rice. A report under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), was thereupon submitted to the District Collector, West Godavari District, the 1st respondent herein, and the enquiry is said to be pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent by filing an application dated 27.09.2011 and sought for release of the vehicle. The 1st respondent issued the impugned endorsement CSI/109/ECA/2011, dated 19.10.2011. The purport of the said endorsement is that the 1st respondent was not inclined to release the vehicle on a security of Rs.80,000/- only whereas the value of the vehicle is more than the said amount. Heard Smt. V. Padmaja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement insisting the petitioner to furnish security for the value of the vehicle is not legal. Under the provisions of 6A of the Act, a vehicle, which is liable to be confiscated, may be released on security for the value of the seized stock. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submits that the enquiry under Section 6 of the Act is still pending and since the vehicle itself is liable for confiscation, it cannot be released on the bank guarantee for an amount less than the value of the vehicle. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Collector of Ganjam and anr. v. Ramesh Chander Pandhi[1]. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. I may mention that hitherto I have passed several orders directing release of vehicles on furnishing bank guarantee/deposit for a sum of equivalent to the value of the seized stock. I must hasten to state that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court has not been brought to my notice when those orders are passed. In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court considered the effect of the second proviso to Section 6A of the Act and held as follows. “Question is -- whether fine should not exceed the market price of the seized essential commodity or whether it should not exceed the market price of the vehicle. For this purpose, it appears that there is some ambiguity in the section. It is not specifically provided that in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle a fine not exceeding the market price of the vehicle or of the seized essential commodity is to be taken as a measure. Still however, it is difficult to say that the measure of fine is related to the market price of the essential commodity at the date of its seizure. It nowhere provides that fine should not exceed the market price of the essential commodity at the date of seizure of the vehicle. The proviso requires the competent authority to give an option to the owner of such vehicle to pay in lieu of confiscation a fine not exceeding the market price. What is to be confiscated is the vehicle and, therefore, the measure of fine would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. This would also be consistent with the scheme of Section 7 which provides for levy of penalty. It empowers the court trying the criminal case to pass an order forfeiting to the Government any property in respect of which the order under Section 3 has been contravened. It also empowers forfeiture to the Government of any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and in addition any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity. Therefore, not only the essential commodity which is seized is to be forfeited, but the vehicle also could be forfeited to the Government. Hence, the measure of fine which is required to be levied in lieu of confiscation under the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) would be relatable to the market price of the vehicle and not of the seized essential commodity. And, the fine amount in lieu of confiscation is not to exceed the market price of the vehicle on the date of seizure of the essential commodity. That is to say, the limit of such fine would be up to the market price of the vehicle on the relevant date and it is within the discretion of the competent authority to fix such reasonable amount considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the impugned endorsement, per se, cannot be said to be illegal. However, the 1st respondent does not appear to have ascertained the value of the vehicle through a competent officer. Further, even according to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court the limit of fine would be up to the market price of the vehicle on the relevant date and it is within the discretion of the competent authority to fix reasonable amount less than the value of the vehicle in the facts and circumstances of the case. The 1st respondent could have considered the application of the petitioner in the light of the said observation of the Apex Court. For the aforesaid reasons I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. Accordingly the 1st respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle by assessing the value of the vehicle through an appropriate officer and release the vehicle on appropriate terms including furnishing of bank guarantee/deposit of amount for a sum not exceeding the value of the vehicle. It is directed that the said exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 27th October, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. in two days. Js. [1] AIR 2009 SC 1850