IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14175 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Balaji Modern Rice and Oil Mill, rep. by its Prop: S.C.Hari Prasada Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14175 OF 2010 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be a resident of Tamilnadu State. It is stated that he is carrying on business in rice and oil. On 20.05.2010, while the petitioner was transporting rice in the vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TB 5677, covered by pass bearing No.1399106284161, dated 20.05.2010, the same was seized by the Tahsildar, Patancherevu, Medak District under panchanama dated 25.05.2010 alleging that the rice was being transported without valid documents. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were initiated before the respondent herein-Joint Collector, Medak District under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) for confiscation of the stock as well as the vehicle. Pending the said proceedings, the respondent by order dated 07.06.2010 directed sale of the seized stock of 350 bags of raw rice through public auction. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record. It is apparent from the impugned order dated 07.06.2010 that the respondent had ordered the sale of the stock seized mechanically without recording his satisfaction that the stock seized was subject to speedy and natural decay. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Vinayaka Agro Products v. Inspector of Police, VC, CSD, Khammam and another[1] further contended that the seizure of stock itself is liable to be declared as illegal. The facts with which the Division Bench was dealing with in said decision are entirely different from the facts of the present case. Hence, no finding as such can be recorded at this stage as to the legality or validity of the seizure. At any rate it is always open to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act and raise all the objections before the respondent. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2010, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to complete the proceedings under 6-A of the Act following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, stock seized shall not be sold. No costs. ​ ____________ Date: 22.06.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd [1] 1996 (3) ALT 673 (D.B.)