The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.24038 of 2010 Date: 28-09-2010 Between: Kandukuri Ravindra Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Spl.Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.H.V.R.R.Swamy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash Order, dated 31-08-2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has rejected the request of the petitioner for release of 170 quintals of rice, seized along with lorry bearing No.AP 27 E 1455, and directed that the said stock be disposed of by way of distribution to cardholders and the sale proceeds be remitted into the Treasury under Revenue Deposits, pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the seized rice belongs to the petitioner, who is in the habit of purchasing the rice meant for Public Distribution System (for short ‘PDS’) from the card holders, for the purpose of doing business therein. In my opinion, the activity, in which the petitioner is stated to have been involved, prima facie constitutes grave violation of the extant Control Order made under the provisions of the Act. However, as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act initiated against the petitioner are pending, I am not inclined to render a conclusive finding on this aspect. It would suffice to note that the rice, which was intended for PDS, was being diverted for being sold in an open market, which is prima facie illegal. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish with relevant material that the seized stock belongs to him. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the enquiry held by the officials of the Civil Supplies Department revealed that the PDS rice was being collected by one Setty Narasimha Rao, Rice Mill Owner, Kuchipudi Village, Kodada Mandal, Nalgonda District. Inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, the petitioner is entitled to participate therein and establish his claim. As the seized rice was meant for PDS, it is appropriate that the same is distributed to the cardholders. If the petitioner succeeds in the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, he is entitled to receive the value of the rice in terms of the provisions of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.2 shall dispose of the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act uninfluenced by any of the findings contained in this order. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.30773 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 28th September, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in one week (B/o) lur