IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10685 of 2008 Between: M/s. Lakshmai Vasavi Traders, Vinukonda, Guntur District, Rep. bys its Proprietor, I. Venkata Ramesh Babu Nageswara Rao, aged 38 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur. 2 The Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure of 2346 bags of Red-Gram or 1498.79 qtls of Red-gram belonging to the petitioner arbitrary malafide illegal and unconstitutional and violative of petitioner right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the seizure of Qtls. 1498.79 kgs. of red gram as arbitrary and illegal. At the hearing, Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, admitted that consequent on seizure of the above mentioned stock, proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) are pending before the first respondent and on 29-04-2008, the petitioner filed an application for release of the seized stock. He submitted that the said application has not been disposed of so far. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that since proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are pending before the first respondent, it is not appropriate for this Court to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of the seizure. Since the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock is stated to have been pending before the first respondent, he is directed to dispose of the same, if not already done. Pending disposal of the said application, the first respondent shall not order for sale of the seized stock. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.13958 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:07.05.2008 Usd