IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15034 of 2009 Between: T. Chamundeshwari, W/o. Balaji, R/o. 135, Anna Pillai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079, Proprietor, Om Sree Traders ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Guntur. 2 The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) Macherla, Guntur District. 3 A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Rep. by its District Manager, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 08-07-2009, in E.C.Act Case No.99/2009–S–7, whereby respondent No.1 directed respondent No.3 to utilize the seized stocks under Public Distribution System (for short ‘PDS’) and remit the sale proceeds at FCI issue price. The petitioner is a trader in rice and chillies at Chennai. He claims that he sold 1700 quintals of raw rice to one Satish Rice Traders, APMC Market- II, Vashi, Mumbai, on 17-06-2009 under cash bill bearing No.23 with CST.No.400901/C/181 and Tin No.27930526957. The petitioner’s case is that the said rice was initially loaded in lorry bearing No. AP 04X 5959 (wrongly mentioned as AP 27X 0263 in the affidavit); that subsequently, the said lorry developed mechanical trouble; that the said load was shifted to lorry bearing No.AP 27X 0263 and that the said lorry was seized along with the stock, when it reached a place near Macherla. The petitioner, evidently, filed an application for release of the seized stock. However, by Order, dated 08-07-2009, respondent No.1 directed disposal of the seized stock through PDS as referred to above. This Order is questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the consignment was supported by the invoice waybill and proof of the consignment entering Andhra from Tamilnadu given by the checkpost of Bhimunivaripalem, Nellore District. He submitted that in view of this documentary evidence, respondent No.1 was not justified in ordering for sale of the seized stock. He also submitted that even assuming that the stocks were liable to be sold pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.1 committed illegality in directing deposit of the sale proceeds at FCI issue price instead of selling it in public auction. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Since the Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated and are presently pending, I refrain from giving findings on merits as that may prejudice the interests of the petitioner. It would suffice to note that on a strong suspicion that the rice being transported are meant for PDS, the stock was directed to be sold through PDS. The power of respondent No.1 to order for interim disposal of the seized stock cannot be disputed. However, in the ultimate event of the petitioner succeeding in the Writ Petition, it should be ensured that no prejudice is caused to him on account of such disposal. Therefore, interests of justice would be met if the impugned order is modified. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of modifying Order, dated 08-07-2009, of respondent No.1, in the following terms: (a) The seized rice is permitted to be sold in public auction; (b) The sale proceeds shall be deposited under revenue deposits referred to in Order, dated 08-07- 2009, of respondent No.1; (c) The proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (d) Appropriation of the sale proceeds shall await the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.19745 and 19746 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 28th July, 2009 lur