THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32065 of 2010 DT.21.12.2010 Between: Maddu Trinadha Rao … Petitioner And The District Collector (CS), West Godavari District at Eluru and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Randhir Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 29.05.2010, and consequential auction notice, dated 14.12.2010, issued by the respondents. The petitioner is a licensed food grains dealer. His shop was inspected on 19.04.2010, stocks worth Rs.5,29,850/- were seized and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. The petitioner filed an application on 21.04.2010 seeking release of the stocks. A few days later, he has filed W.P.No.10501 of 2010 questioning the purported inaction of respondent No.1 in disposing of his application. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.04.2010 as premature. However, respondent No.1 has passed order, dated 29.05.2010, directing sale of the seized stocks through public auction. The petitioner has not questioned the said order immediately. In pursuance of the said order passed by respondent No.1, auction notice was issued on 14.12.2010, fixing 22.12.2010 as the date of auction. Just two days before the scheduled date of auction, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition questioning the order, dated 29.05.2010. Having heard Sri Randhir Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, who has filed a writ petition earlier, at a premature stage, failed to approach this Court at appropriate time and filed the writ petition, rather belatedly. At any rate, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending and through the impugned notice, the seized stocks are proposed to be sold in open auction. It is trite that open auction will fetch best of the prices and if the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the sale proceeds will be made over to him. In this view of the matter, I do not feel inclined to entertain the writ petition and grant relief to the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is entitled to participate in the public auction. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40759 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 21.12.2010 VGB