THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No. 22993 of 2002 Dated:25-07-2007 Between:- Kankanala Manohar Naidu ..Petitioner And The Commissioner of Civil Supplies (Appeals) & Ex-Officio Secretary to Govt., Food & Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No. 22993 of 2002 :O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 31-12-1992 and 05-10-1993 of the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively whereby certain quantity of groundnut oil belonging to the petitioner was confiscated, as illegal. The petitioner is a dealer in edible oil. When groundnut oil was being transported through lorry bearing No.TN21 4226. it was intercepted and seized at the outskirts of Patha Arcot Palle which was within a distance of 25 yards from Tamilnadu border on 28-01-1992. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated and fifty per cent of the seized stock was confiscated to the government by the second respondent vide his proceedings dated 31-12-1992. The District Collector also confiscated the seized lorry and in lieu thereof he imposed a fine of Rs.5,000-00. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The said appeal having been dismissed by the first respondent through his order dated 05-10-1993, the present writ petition is filed questioning both the proceedings of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main ground on which appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed was that the petitioner failed to produce the documents such as license granted under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short ‘the 1982 Order’), the invoice and the waybill pertaining to the commodity, that is, groundnut oil which was seized and eventually confiscated. Learned counsel submitted that though the license and waybill were handed over to the petitioner’s counsel who appeared before the first respondent, he failed to produce the same before the appellate authority. The petitioner’s counsel took adjournment on 18-07-2007 to enable the petitioner to file copies of license and waybill. He later filed the original of way bill dated 27-01-1992 issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Puttur ; and a copy of the license granted under the 1982 Order along with an additional affidavit dated 25-07-2007. Learned counsel submitted that since these documents could not be produced before the appellate authority, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to establish his plea raised before the said authority. I have perused the documents filed by the petitioner and I am satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner that though the documents made available with the counsel, he did not produce the same before the appellate authority. A perusal of the order of the first respondent shows that as the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents, he declined to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent. I am, therefore, of the view that interest of justice would be met if the matter is remitted to the first respondent for re-consideration of the appeal in the light of the documents which are now produced by the petitioner before this Court. For the aforementioned reasons, the order of the third respondent in proceedings Rc. C/14/02 dated 16-08-2002 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for consideration of the same afresh. The Registry is directed to return the documents filed by the petitioner along with additional affidavit dated 25-07-2007 to the petitioner to enable him to present the same before the first respondent. The petitioner shall file these documents within one month from today and thereupon, the first respondent shall dispose of the appeal within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 25-07-2007. Pvks/*