HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20975 of 2009 Date : 04.11.2011 Between : M/s. Sri Shanmukhi Traders, Chennai, rep. by its Proprietor. …..Petitioner And Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Narayankhed, Medak District & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20975 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the seizure of lorry of the petitioner along with 170 quintals of raw rice, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that he is a resident of Govindappanaikan street in Chennai, Tamilnadu State. It is his case that he has undertaken transportation of 170 quintals of rice in the lorry bearing No.KA-39-4360 from Chennai to Mumbai and was passing through the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he has not purchased the rice in Andhra Pradesh and not selling the same in Andhra Pradesh, he is not required to take any permit as per the Control Order framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In support of his argument that the seizure itself is per se illegal, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Vinayaka Agro Products Vs. Arun Kumar[1]. At the stage of admission, this Court directed the respondents to release the vehicle in question and the commodity seized, on furnishing third party security for Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Narayankhed, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is categorically stated that at the time of seizure, petitioner could not produce the permits and bills for purchase of rice. It is further stated that when the lorry driver was examined, he has stated that the stock of raw rice of 170 quintals was loaded in the lorry bearing No.KA-39-4360 at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh for transportation to Maharashtra State. It is further stated in the counter that as the transportation was not supported by any valid documents, seizure was effected and by initiating proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the petitioner was given notice under Section 6-B of the said Act on 30.09.2009, vide proceedings in CSA/49/2009, but the petitioner has not filed any explanation to such show cause notice. Reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is strenuously contended by Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for petitioner that as the petitioner has undertaken transportation of rice from the State of Tamilnadu to Maharashtra, there is no need to obtain any permit from the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that as the very seizure itself is illegal, it is evidently a fit case to quash the seizure itself without inquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. It is very difficult to accept the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner. Whether the stock seized is loaded in the State of Andhra Pradesh or not, is a matter for inquiry by the authority under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that such stock is loaded in Tamilnadu, in the counter, it is categorically pleaded that when the Driver was questioned, he has stated that the stock was loaded in Vijayawada of Andhra Pradesh State. In that view of the matter, it is a matter for inquiry by the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Having regard to such allegations made, the aforesaid judgment of a Division Bench of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner will not be of any assistance in support of his argument. As much as the vehicle in question and the stock is already released to the petitioner on furnishing third party security in compliance of the interim orders passed by this Court and as it is pleaded that inquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act is still pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to complete the inquiry pending under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. As it is pleaded that after service of notice under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation, petitioner is permitted to submit explanation to the said notice within a period of four weeks from today. If any such explanation is filed within four weeks, respondents shall take the same into consideration and pass appropriate orders. If the explanation is not filed within the time stipulated above, it is open for the respondents to pass final orders in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th November 2011 N.B: Issue C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr [1] 1996 (3) ALT 673 (D.B)