IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.26948 of 2010 Between: Jonnalagadda Venkata Chennaiah and others. … Petitioners And The District Collector (C.S.Wing), Prakasam District at Ongole and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.K.Aruna. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 22-9-2010, passed by respondent No.1, whereby he has directed interim disposal of the seized stocks comprising 210 quntals of paddy and 10 quintals of Nellore Sannalu Rice, all worth about Rs.2,09,000/-, through public auction. The petitioners claim to be the farmers and that the above mentioned seized stocks were stored in Sri Mallikarjuna Rice Mill, Tripuranthakam, belonging to one Sri Alapati Sambasiva Rao as there was no space in their premises. The said stocks were seized from the above mentioned mill premises on the ground that the owner of the mill did not have the license and has violated the relevant Control Orders. The petitioners made a claim before respondent No.1 for release of the said stocks. While rejecting the said claim, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings. Smt.K.Aruna, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are genuine agriculturists and that the interim order directing interim disposal of the seized stocks in public auction causes prejudice to their interests. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The question whether the seized stocks belong to the petitioners or to the rice mill owner needs to be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), pending before respondent No.1. Even in the ultimate event of confiscating the seized stocks, the State is entitled to recover their cost. Therefore, in order to balance the interests of the State and that of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate that the seized stocks are released to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.2,09,000/- representing the market value as assessed by respondent No.1. The release of the stocks on the above condition shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-10-2010 MNR