THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.24545 of 2011 Date: 30.08.2011 Between: Vanavasam Ramireddy and others. … Petitioners and The Collector (C.S. Wing), Warangal District, Warangal and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.24545 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the short relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order in ECAC.No.65/2011 (RC.No.F1/993/2011), dated 22.8.2011 passed by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing), Warangal District, directing the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Marripeda Mandal, Warangal District, to dispose of the seized stock of the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioners claim to be agriculturists and raised red gram in their lands. On an information that one Sreeram Tharakam, r/o. Gundepudi village of Maripeda Mandal, is doing clandestine business of red gram, the 2nd respondent-Grain Purchasing Assistant, Warangal, and the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Cherial, found a lorry bearing No.AP-36-Y-1122 loaded with red gram and seized the said stock under panchanama dated 12.8.2011. A complaint to that effect was filed before the 1st respondent under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”). Having taken cognizance of the same, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 22.8.2011 directing disposal of the seized stock. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seized stock belongs to the petitioners. The petitioners have cultivated the red gram crop in their own lands and while they were transporting the stock to the market for sale, the said stock was seized by the respondents. He also submits that the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 19.8.2011 seeking release of the stock. Even though the 1st respondent is under obligation to consider the said representation, the impugned order has been passed for sale of the seized stock. It is contended that if the seized stock is sold even before conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable loss. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that appropriate directions be issued to the 1st respondent for expeditious disposal of the enquiry proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pending finalisation of the said enquiry, not to dispose of the seized stock. 5. Indisputably, the stock of the petitioners was seized under panchanama dated 12.8.2011 and an enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act is pending against the petitioners. The petitioners have also submitted a representation dated 19.8.2011 claiming that the stock belongs to them. Therefore, when a claim is made, the 1st respondent is expected to consider the said claim petition and pass appropriate orders before initiating proceedings for interim disposal of the seized stock. 6. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 19.8.2011 of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till orders are passed on the said application, the seized stock shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 30.08.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. by 2.9.2011. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.24545 of 2011 30.08.2011 (Msr)