HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.29149 of 2011 Date: 15-11-2011 Between M.Naresh … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor, Chittoor district and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.29149 of 2011 Order: The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods carriage bearing registration No.AP26TT-4878. The 3rd respondent intercepted the said vehicle on 19-9-2011 and found carrying 178 bags of subsidy rice (equivalent to 85 quintals). The vehicle along with the stock was seized and a case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner approached the Joint Collector by filing a claim petition dated 24-9-2011 seeking release of the vehicle. The 1st respondent thereupon passed the impugned Endorsement dated 05-10-2011 directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.1,37,248/- for ordering release of the vehicle. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said order to the extent that it has directed him to furnish bank guarantee and seeks modification of the order to furnish personal bond or third party security in lieu of the bank guarantee. 2. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the vehicle on 30-01-2010 under hire purchase agreement with Cholamandalam Finance Limited, Nellore and that the seized stock has been carried without his knowledge and due to the inadvertence of the driver who did not notice that the rice was meant for Public Distribution System. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the enquiry and defend his case and since the enquiry takes considerable time, detention of the vehicle would be in nobody’s interest. It is further stated that the petitioner is a poor person dependent on the vehicle for his livelihood. He, therefore, submits that the vehicle be directed to be released on furnishing third party security. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the vehicle was in fact found carrying Public Distribution System rice and since the same is liable to be confiscated, the petitioner is equally liable for confiscation. He, however, submits that without furnishing adequate security, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. Whether the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in transporting the seized stock with the knowledge of the petitioner or his connivance through his driver are all the questions to be decided in the enquiry. This Court cannot go into the said questions at this stage. The only question is whether the impugned endorsement directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee is liable to be modified. 7. It is true that under Section 6A of the Act, where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of the Control Order, such commodity and the vehicle carrying the commodity are liable to be confiscated. The second proviso, however, provides that in the case of a vehicle, the owner shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation a fine not exceeding the market price at the rate of seizure of the essential commodity. The said proviso thus permits an owner to pay the fine in lieu of suffering confiscation of the vehicle. 8. Apparently, having regard to this position, the 1st respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. The object being to ensure realization of fine amount in case an order is passed confiscating the vehicle. The payment of fine can be enforced not only by furnishing bank guarantee but by other suitable modes. In a given case, a person may be capable of providing security by furnishing bank guarantee and another person may not be in such a position. Therefore, compelling a person, who is not in a position to furnish bank guarantee, may not be justified. These things may vary from case to case. 9. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he does not have capacity to furnish bank guarantee. The petitioner has filed a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1214/2006, whereunder he has purchased Ac.4-10 cents of land situate in Survey Nos.130, 16 and 17/2 of Sullurpet village and Mandal, Nellore district. He has also filed a copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 08-11-2011. Having regard to this fact, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met by permitting the petitioner to submit the said document in original and the Encumbrance Certificate towards security in lieu of the bank guarantee. 10. In the circumstances as above, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (1) The impugned Endorsement of the 1st respondent vide Roc.D1/981/2011, dated 05-10-2011, is modified directing that the petitioner be permitted to furnish immoveable property security by deposit of title deed bearing document No.1214/2006 and the original Encumbrance Certificate dated 08-11-2011 before the 1st respondent along with an undertaking that he will not alienate or otherwise encumber the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings and produce the same whenever required by the 1st respondent. (2) The document so filed shall be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, at the stage of admission. Registry is directed to return the original sale deed by retaining a photo copy of the same. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 15th November, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.29149 of 2011 15th November, 2011. (Ak)