HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.27761 of 2011 Date: 04-11-2011 Between M/s. Chandra Modern Rice Mill, Rep. by G.Changa Reddy, Guttavaripalli, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor district … Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor district and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.27761 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the stock of the petitioner by putting the same for public auction vide the impugned auction notice No.Roc.C/641/2011, dated 28-9-2011, issued by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal and consequently direct the respondents to release the seized stock. 3. The petitioner claims to be a proprietary concern engaged in milling paddy under a wholesale licence. The case of the petitioner is that on the telephonic instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, the 2nd respondent herein, and other officials inspected the mill on 07-9-2011 and seized 370 bags of rice weighing 186.90 quintals, 220 bags of second grade weighing 46.20 quintals, 25 bags of broken rice weighing 13.70 quintals and 25 empty gunny bags on the ground that the rice was meant for Public Distribution System. The said exercise is said to have been made under a panchanama in the presence of mediators. The petitioner states that he is authorized to store scheduled commodities up to 1000 quintals since the mill is in the Urban area and that the 3rd respondent without verifying the records issued the impugned notice for auction. It is stated that the petitioner made an application on 26-9-2011 before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Chittoor, for release of the stock, on the ground that he purchased paddy and milled the same. The 1st respondent did not pass any orders on the said application. The petitioner, therefore, states that the action of the respondents in proposing to auction the seized stock without any proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and without notice under Section 6B of the Act is not legal and valid. The petitioner disputes that the seized rice was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System. 4. This matter was moved by way of lunch motion on 10-10-2011. This Court while directing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to get instructions, granted an interim order staying auction of the stocks. The matter is listed today for admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the stock was auctioned on 10-10-2011. Order of this Court was communicated to the respondents by wire. A copy of receipt, through which the order was communicated, is placed before this Court. It shows that the telegram was booked on 10-10-2011 at 18:00:44 hours (6 p.m.). Another receipt is placed, which is said to be fax message sent on 14-10-2011 at 11:46 a.m. As seen from the impugned auction notice, the auction was proposed to be conducted on 10-10-2011 at 3 p.m. So, in all probability, by the time the copy of order reached the respondents, the stock had already been auctioned. The writ petition could have been disposed of on this ground. However, as the learned counsel insisted for disposal on merits, I proceed to consider. 5. As noticed above, the petitioner has challenged the proposed auction of the seized stock in pursuance of the notice dated 28-9-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent. A perusal of the said notice shows that it has been issued by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein, vide Lr.No.D1/928/2011, dated 22-9- 2011. It is not in dispute that the Joint Collector is the competent authority and the 3rd respondent is only the implementing authority, therefore challenging the order of the 3rd respondent, which is only a consequential order, without challenging the orders of the competent authority, is of no avail to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in A.Siva Reddy and others v. District Collector, Kurnool, contends that the petitioner was put to notice before ordering the auction of the seized stock. It is true that the learned Division Bench observed in the said judgment that notice to the party is appropriate before ordering auction. In that case sufficient material was placed including the panchanama under which the stock was seized and all the particulars including the name of the persons concerned therein. In the instant case the petitioner has not even filed a copy of the panchanama, and as observed above he has not even challenged the order under which the stock was directed to be sold. 7. Even though the petitioner has claimed to be a wholesale licencee, curiously it has not placed an authenticated copy before this Court. A photostat copy placed before this Court has not even indicated the period of validity of the licence. Even the petitioner has not pleaded that the licence is valid as on date. Hence the copy which is placed before this Court is not liable to be taken into consideration. 8. Clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, stipulates that every licence granted under the said Order is valid for a period ending 31st March initially and may be renewed further for a period specified from time to time by the Government. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid provision, this Court during the course of argument, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the original authenticated copy of the said licence. Inspite of asking, no such copy is produced before this Court. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner has approached this Court without proper pleadings, without relevant material and without disclosing the true facts as to the validity of the licence. 10. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, at the stage of admission. Consequently, the interim order granted on 10-10-2011 shall stand vacated. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 04th November, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.27761 of 2011 04th November, 2011. (Ak)