THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos. 21258 and 21259 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since both the Writ Petitions arise out of same cause of action, they are heard together and being disposed of with the consent of both the counsel at the admission stage. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21258 of 2011 is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 W 3141, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21259 of 2011 is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TT 2871. The said vehicles were seized by the Deputy Tahsildar(CS)-2nd respondent under a panchanama dated 24.6.2011 as they were found carrying rice of 132.50 qtls. meant for public distribution system. A report dated 25.6.2011 was submitted to that effect to the 1st respondent and proceedings have been initiated for confiscation under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the “Act”). Petitioners have submitted applications seeking release of the vehicles contending that they were carrying rice bona fide and that they had no knowledge that the rice was meant for public distribution system. The 1st respondent under the impugned order directed that the request of the petitioners for release of the vehicles would be considered on condition of furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 1,06,928/- and on furnishing an undertaking not to alienate or dispose of vehicles till the disposal of the case. The petitioners have challenged the said conditions in these writ petitions. Section 6-A of the Act empowers the 1st respondent to confiscate the essential commodities and any vehicle involved in the offence for contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Act. However, the second proviso provides that in 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 of the essential commodities sought to be carried by such vehicle. In view of the said proviso, the 1st respondent at the most could have directed the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee for the market price of the seized stock. Having regard to the fact that a total quantity of 132.50 qtls. was found in two vehicles, keeping in view the prevailing market price, at the most the 1st respondent ought to have directed to furnish the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from each of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the impugned order in so far as directing the petitioners to furnish the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 1,06,928/- is modified and instead, the petitioners shall furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. On furnishing the said bank guarantee, the 1st respondent shall release the vehicles. In all other respects, the impugned order is confirmed. These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. __________________ 28.07.2011 N.B. C.C. in 2 (two) days. BO CHV