THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16878 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an authorized fair price shop dealer, questioned the seizure of 30.70 quintals and 40.66 quintals of rice pertaining to Public Distribution System from the shop, for which she is a permanent dealer, and another shop, for which she is in-charge, which are inspected by the respondents. On the ground that there were certain variations in the stocks, when the book balances are compared with the ground balances, and on the allegation that she indulged in some irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities, the stocks were seized. It is to be noted that the authorisation granted to the petitioner is still in force. Whether the petitioner is entitled for release of the commodities, which were seized by the respondents, or not, is a matter to be considered under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). As much as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are not yet initiated by the Joint Collector, who is the competent authority for initiation of such proceedings, and the authorisation of the petitioner is still in force, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the aforesaid seized stocks, which are meant for public distribution system, on furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner equivalent to the value of the seized stocks to the satisfaction of the first respondent - Tahsildar, Kadapa, and such bank guarantee shall be subject to final orders to be passed by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. It is made clear that if no proceedings are initiated under Section 6-A of the Act within a period of six (6) months from today, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. It is further made clear that with regard to the alleged irregularities, if any, committed by the petitioner, it is open to the competent authority to take appropriate action against her in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th JULY, 2010. Note: issue c.c. today. kvni