IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15713 of 2009 Between: M/s. Bharath Food Products a partnership firm Sircilla Road, Kamareddy, Rep. by its Partner Mr. P. Eshwaraiah S/o. Buchaiah 50 yrs, R/o. Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Nizamabad District. 2 The Assistant Supply Officer Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 3 Tahsildar, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the interim disposal order in respect of Seized Stock dt. 28-7-2009 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 as being illegal, arbitrary and unlawful and setting aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.PUSHYAM KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.15713 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the interim disposal order in respect of seized stock dated 28.07.2009 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. Since the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been initiated and the petitioner already represented the matter before the 1st respondent-District Collector as to how the said seizure was illegal and also gave a representation on 07.07.2009 requesting him to release the seized stocks and the same is pending consideration, this Court is of the view that it may not be necessary to go into the various facts which are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it is suffice to direct the 1st respondent-District Collector to consider the representation dated 07.07.2009 made by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from today. While considering the said representation, the 1st respondent may fix a date so that the petitioner can appear before him and ventilate its grievances as to how the seizure in question was illegal. Pending consideration of the said representation, the seized stock shall not be sold. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 03-08-2009 Note: Operative portion of the Order already sent. Gsn.