HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.15699 of 2011 Date: 27-7-2011 Between Maddali Ravindranath … Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.15699 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 2. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent as to the ownership of the seized stock. In view of the submission of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 4th respondent consenting for an enquiry into the ownership of the seized stock, this writ petition is being disposed of. 3. On 29-4-2011 the Assistant Supply Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam district along with Essential Commodity Deputy Tahsildars S.Konda and Kandukur inspected the premises of the rice mill, namely, Sri Siva Sankara Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, situated at Pakala Road, Somarajupalli village, Singarayakonda Mandal and found huge quantities of paddy, rice and broken-rice stored in the premises. A panchanama was conducted in the presence of the 4th respondent and the stock found was seized alleging that the 4th respondent indulged in doing clandestine business by contravening the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. A report was submitted in that regard to the 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam at Ongole for appropriate action under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short). The 4th respondent submitted an application on 30-4-2011 claiming that the stock belongs to him and therefore, the same be released in his favour. The writ petitioner also made an application on 07-5-2011 setting up a claim in respect of the said stock. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he is running the mill as a lessee. He had filed the suit O.S.No.3 of 2002 in the court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole against the 4th respondent and two others for permanent injunction, restraining him and others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the mill. He also obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.241 of 2002, dated 19-7-2002. Therefore, it is his case that the 4th respondent, against whom the injunction was in force, would not have entered and stored the stock in the mill premises. In view of the fact that both parties set up rival claims, the 2nd respondent caused an enquiry into the ownership of the stock through the Tahsildar, Singarayakonda vide his Memo Rc.CSI/6A/74/2011, dated 19-5-2011. The Tahsildar appears to have called both the parties and after examining them, submitted a report Rc.No.B/113/2011, dated 26-5- 2011 stating that the seized stock belongs to the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent, however, passed the impugned order dated 07-6-2011 independently, without reference to the said report of the Tahsildar, directing release of the seized stock in favour of the 4th respondent on condition of furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- pending finalization of the case under Section 6-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. On a consideration of the above facts and on hearing both the learned counsel, it is evident that there is a serious dispute as to the ownership of the seized stock. The petitioner has set up a case claiming as a lessee of the mill and also claiming that he purchased the stock from the farmers on credit basis. Equally, the 4th respondent has also set up his claim asserting that notwithstanding the injunction orders he had stored the commodities in the mill after purchasing from the farmers on credit basis. Both parties, in fact, made a similar plea before the Tahsildar by producing the farmers to support their case. 5. Indisputably, the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to hold an enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. The 2nd respondent has already initiated action by issuing notice Rc.CS1/6A/74/2011, dated 11-5-2011, under Section 6-B of the Act. Hence, in a matter of this nature, in the light of the serious dispute as to the ownership of the stock, it is, therefore, appropriate for the 2nd respondent himself to conduct an enquiry and decide the issue. This Court would have directed the 2nd respondent to decide this issue as a preliminary issue before the conclusion of the enquiry, in which event, the 2nd respondent should hold another enquiry for the purpose of the case under Section 6-A of the Act. In order to obviate the said difficulty, both the learned counsel agree that the issue relating to ownership also can be appropriately decided in the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. 6. In the light of the said submission and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to accede to the consent of the parties. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order: (1) The 2nd respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam at Ongole shall proceed in furtherance of the show cause notice Rc.CS1/6A/74/2011, dated 11- 5-2011 and finalize the enquiry by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (2) The 2nd respondent shall put both the petitioner and the 4th respondent on notice and afford opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their claims; (3) In consequence of the enquiry if the stock is not liable to be confiscated, the same shall be handed over to the party, in whose favour the 2nd respondent records a finding as to the ownership of the seized stock; (4) Till the disposal of the enquiry as above, the seized stock shall not be released to either of the parties nor the same shall be disposed of otherwise. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 27th July, 2011. Note:- Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.15699 of 2011 27th July, 2011. (Ak)