HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17654 of 2010 Date: July 26, 2010 Between: M/s. Vijaya Durga Traders, represented by its Managing Partner Mr. Tallur Vinaya Chandra, S/o. Malleshwara Rao, aged about 30 years, Occ: business, R/o. Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioner And The Joint Collector (CS Wing), Prakasam District, Ongole, and Another … Respondents Order: The petitioner questions proceedings Rc.CS1/6A/90/2010, dated 14-07-2010, issued by the first respondent-Joint Collector (CS Wing), Prakasam District. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm involved in the business of rice, is represented by one of its managing partners. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the respondents and they seized 225.50 quintals of rice therefrom, which is meant for public distribution system. After seizure, the said stock of rice was ordered to be sold by public auction, pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by the first respondent-Joint Collector (CS), Prakasam District, by the impugned proceedings. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, earlier, rice meant for public distribution system was seized from third parties and sold in public auction and the petitioner has purchased the said rice in the auction and stored the same in the premises; as such there is no illegality in possessing the stock of said rice in the business premises. In view of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), this court, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot determine whether the allegations leveled against the petitioner are true and cannot record a define finding on merits at this stage. It is to be seen that the seized stock is ordered to be sold in public auction and the amount realized thereon is directed to be remitted into Revenue Deposits. If the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings pending, he will get back the amount realized on sale of the stock in question in public auction. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings. However, as much as the seizure of stock in question was effected on 20-06-2010 and proceedings are pending before the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act, I dispose of the writ petition directing the competent authority/first respondent to complete the proceedings and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 26, 2010 MRR