IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4482 of 2007 Between: M/s. P.B. Udyog Situated at 3-8-81/10, Sy. No. 443/2, Siddapur Road Beside Power House, Sadasivapet, Medak District, rep by its Managing Partner Sanjay Agarwal S/o Premchand Agarwal aged 31 yeras Occ: Business, R/ 01.6.26/A/9 Sardarvallabh Bhai Patel Gunj, Sadasivpet Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy 2 The mandal Revenue Officer Sadasivapet Mandal, Medak District. 3 Dy. Tahsildar, Civil Supplies Sangareddy, Medak District. 4 The Dy. Commercial Tax Officer Vigilance and Enforcement Sangareddy, Medak District. 5 The C.I. Police, Vigilance Cell Medak at Sangareddy. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATESWAR FOR MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For all the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to releases the seized stocks which were seized by the respondents 3 to 6 herein in favour of the petitioner by duly declaring the seizure made by the respondents 3 to 6 herein alleging certain variations and violation of clause 20 and conditions of license issued under A.P.S.C.D(L&D) order 1982 (pulses) and also the consequential order passed by the first respondent vide NO.CSA/37/2007 dated 28-2-2007 for sale of the seized stocks without assigning valid reasons as required under Sec.6-A(2) of EC.Act 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of EC Act and control orders made there under as well as procedure contemplated for search and seizure in Criminal procedure Code, 1973.” Sri V.Venkateswar, learned counsel representing Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition in terms of his letter, dated 26.03.2008 addressed to the Registry. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, interim order, dated 06.03.2007 is vacated and WPMP.No.5710 of 2007 is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th MARCH, 2008 kvni