THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26401 of 2010 Dated 26th October, 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Sujatha General Stores, represented by its Proprietor, Kurnool …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Ongole and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I. Koti Reddy Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he has directed disposal of the seized stock by conducting open auction. I have heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner, who is a fair price shop dealer, has obtained food grains licence. On information that the petitioner illegally stored BPT and 74 variety of rice, the second respondent along with staff inspected the shop of the petitioner and found 65.25 quintals of BPT rice in 261 bags (each 25 kgs), 71.25 quintals of 74 variety rice in 285 bags and 20 quintals of 74 variety partly damaged rice in 80 bags, in total 156.50 quintals of rice. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to produce the records on the ground that they were submitted to the auditor and due to his absence, the same could not be produced. When the petitioner was questioned as to why he obtained food grains licence, while acting as a fair price shop dealer, the petitioner expressed his ignorance of the rule position. Respondent No.2 has seized the aforementioned stock worth Rs.3,30,625/- under the cover of panchanama. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. The petitioner made an application for release of the seized stock. Respondent No.1, vide impugned order, directed interim disposal of the seized stock through public auction and remittance of the sale proceeds into revenue deposits pending enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction to sell the seized stock is too harsh and that the same will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel. Under Section 6-A (2) of the Act, where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may order sale of the commodities. Under Section 6-A (3) of the Act, where the essential commodity is sold, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall be paid to the owner thereof, where no order of confiscation is ultimately passed or order of confiscation is set aside in appeal or where prosecution ends to acquittal of the owner concerned. In my opinion, on the facts of the present case, respondent No.1 has felt that it is expedient to sell the seized stock in public auction. The discretion so exercised by respondent No.1 cannot be said to be either arbitrary or improper. This Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with such a discretion exercised by the statutory authority, in the light of the abovementioned facts, more so when the seized stock was directed to be sold through public auction, and if the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, he will be entitled to the sale proceeds. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33723 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th October, 2010 GHN