IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13781 of 2009 Between: 1 Banda Linga Reddy S/o.Malla Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 2 Banda Saidi Reddy S/o.Narsi Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 3 Putta Ananta Rajendra Reddy S/o.Papi Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 4 Gayam Veera Reddy S/o.Narayana Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 5 Gayam Venkata Ramana Reddy S/o.Narayana Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 6 Gayam Srisathi S/o.Ramana Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 7 Varakala Venkateswar Reddy S/o.Pulla Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 8 Katta Malla Reddy S/o.Narsi Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 9 Paramarti Krishna Mohan Rao S/o.Kotaiah R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 10 Varakala Mangamma W/o.Venkateswar Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 11 Edula Janakamma W/o.Bhupal Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district 12 Smt.B.Vanaja W/o.Bandla Venkata Reddy R/o.Edulagudem village Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector (CS), Nalgonda District 2 The Joint Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District 3 The District Manager, AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Nalgonda 4 The Tahsildar, Miryalagudem Mandal Nalgonda District ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: Despite adjournment of the case on the previous two occasions, neither a counter-affidavit is filed nor instructions are reported from the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioners, who claimed to be the agriculturists, assailed seizure of 2100 quintals of paddy of BPT variety and 600 quintals of paddy of 1010 variety from the godown said to be belonging to petitioner No.1. The task force team of Miryalaguda Division, raided the godown belonging to petitioner No.1 situated at Edulaguda on 22.06.2009 and on the suspicion that petitioner No.1 illegally hoarded the above mentioned stock, without a licence, it seized the stock and sent a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 02.07.2009 to petitioner No.1 under Section 6-B of the Act. On 03.07.2009, respondent No.1 passed an order to sell the paddy in open market, after getting the same milled, through special counter of Hyderabad/Rangal Reddy Districts and Nalgonda. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners submitted that the seized paddy was produced by them in their agricultural lands. In paragraph 3, the petitioners have indicated the extents of land and the quantity of paddy produced by them in those extents. They have also filed copies of pattadar passbooks, which purportedly show that the petitioners own lands. The question, whether the claim of petitioners 2 to 12 that they are the owners of the paddy stored in the godown of petitioner No.1, along with his own paddy, was correct or not is required to be examined by respondent No.1 in the pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. The genuineness of the claim of each of the petitioners needs to be examined with reference to the authenticity of the pattadar passbooks and the other evidence, if any to show that the seized paddy belongs to them. However, the question that needs to be addressed at this stage is whether the seized paddy should be released to the petitioners or allowed the same to be converted into rice and sold through counters. In view of the prima facie evidence produced by the petitioners, their claim that the stocks belong to them cannot be totally brushed aside at this stage, though as noted above, the same has to be closely and meticulously examined by respondent No.1 in the pending proceedings. However, in the event of the petitioners establishing their bona fides and proving their plea that the seized paddy was grown by them in their agricultural lands, interim disposal in the manner it is directed by respondent No.1 is likely to cause prejudice to their interests. At the same time, this Court also cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is acute shortage of rice in the State leading to skyrocketing of prices. Therefore, in order to balance the public interest and that of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. (1) Order dated 03.07.2009 of respondent No.1 is modified by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to sell the seized paddy, within a period of one month from today, under the direct supervision and control of respondent No.3 in the open market; (2) the sale proceeds shall be deposited with respondent No.1; (3) depending upon the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the sale proceeds shall be appropriated and (4) the petitioners are permitted to file their respective explanations to the show cause notice issued under Section 6- B of the Act, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st July, 2009 vrn