THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5395 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner questioned the seizure of 49.20 quintals of food grains i.e. 36 quintals of BPT Rice, 12.50 quintals of Broken Rice, 0.20 kgs of Redgram Dal, 0.25 kgs of Sugar and 0.25 kgs of Bengalgram Dal, from his shop by conducting a panchanama by the fourth respondent – Assistant Supply Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, on 04.03.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that having regard to the quantities seized, there is no obligation for him to take a license under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, as such, he seeks declaration that seizure itself is illegal. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated that as much as the petitioner stored stock more than the quantity prescribed in 2008 Order, the petitioner is not entitled to sell the same without possessing required license under Clause 2K(4) of 2008 Order. It is also stated that pursuant to the seizure report submitted by the inspecting authority under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken for confiscation of the seized stock in favour of the Government but no reply has been filed and proceedings are pending. Whether the petitioner having regard to the quantities stored by him is required to take license or not is a matter to be examined under Section 6-A of the Act. As it is stated in the counter-affidavit that having regard to the stock seized from the shop of the petitioner is more than the minimum quantities notified to possess license, seizure cannot be declared as illegal at this stage. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise objections before the authority concerned pursuant to show cause notice that was issued under Section 6-A of the Act. As it is stated that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a further direction that if the seized stock is not sold or disposed of as on today, the same shall not be sold till final orders are passed under Section 6-A of the Act. It is made clear that if there is any damage caused to the seized stock, the petitioner shall not claim any damages therefor. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni