THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.9869 OF 2011 ORDER Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of 2nd respondent-The Assistant Supply Officer, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District in seizing the lorry bearing registration No.MH 30 B 2567 along with 100 quintals of rice under panchanama dated 26-3-2011 as illegal and consequently to direct 1st respondent i.e., Joint Collector (CS) Karimnagar to release the same. Petitioner No.1 claims to be a businessman engaged in sale and purchase of rice under a valid licence both as a wholesaler and a retailer. It is stated that he engaged the lorry bearing No. MH 30 B 2567 of the 2nd petitioner herein for transporting 100 quintals of raw rice to Bodhan. The said vehicle was seized along with the stock by 2nd respondent alleging that the stock was being transported without way bill, release order and permit as required under the Control Order. The petitioners contend that they have not contravened the provisions of any Control Order, and hence the stock and the vehicle are not liable for seizure. In that regard, they made applications dated 29-3-2011 and 7-4-2011 to 1st respondent seeking release of the same. As there was inaction, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, reports that proceedings have already been initiated for confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and a show cause notice bearing No. G3/260/2011, dated 30-3-2011 under Section 6-B of the Act has already been issued. That being the situation, 1st respondent is always at liberty to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action pursuant to the show cause notice. However, I am of the view that the detention of the vehicle is no more required for the purpose of such enquiry. In fact second proviso to Section 6-A of the Act prescribes that in such cases the owner of a vehicle is entitled to give his option to pay in lieu of confiscation of fine not exceeding the market price at the rate of the seizure of the essential commodities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct 1st respondent to release lorry bearing No. MH 30 B 2567 subject to the condition of 2nd petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the seized stock as assessed by 1st respondent. Insofar as the rice is concerned, 1st petitioner is not entitled to release of stock during pendency of the enquiry. However, the said stock shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of until enquiry under Section 6-A is disposed of. 1st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Note: Issue operative portion of the Order by wire at party’s costs. (B.O) rkk Dated: 18-4-2011