THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26514 of 2010 DT.27.10.2010 Between: Kona Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And The Joint collector (CS), West Godavari District at Eluru and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.V.Padmaja Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 20.10.2010, of respondent No.1, wherein he directed respondent No.2 to dispose of the seized stock through public distribution system, in spite of furnishing security equivalent to the value of the stock seized. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist owning a non-trading rice mill. Following an inspection made by the DSO, West Godavari, Eluru, and his staff, rice worth Rs.1,19,750/- was seized from the petitioner’s rice mill and another premises bearing Door No.7-89 Yagnavari Veedhi, Kaikaram Village, and proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated. Respondent No.1 through his order, dated 20.10.2010, directed that the seized stock be disposed of through public auction and the sale proceeds be deposited in his favour. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is, however, averred that respondent No.1 has changed the said order by directing that the seized stock shall be disposed of through public distribution system. At the hearing, Smt.V.Padmaja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed before the Court an unsigned order bearing the same date as the original order bears, wherein a purported direction was given that the seized stock should be sold through public distribution system. Since this copy is not authenticated, it is not appropriate for this Court to make any comment with respect thereto. However, if respondent No.1 intended to change the original order, such an action is not permissible in law. Be that as it may, on the facts of the case, where the rice was seized on the ground that the stocks were not properly entered in the A-Register and also a part of the stock, namely, 78.50 quintals, was stored in a premises without permission, the decision of respondent No.1 to sell the seized stock through open action/public distribution system is too harsh and disproportionate to the allegations on which seizure was effected and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated. To show his bona fides, the petitioner has submitted the term deposit slip for Rs.1,19,750/-, representing the value of the seized stock, along with his application for release of the seized stock. On the above facts, I am of the opinion that in the interests of justice, the seized stock shall be released to the petitioner, subject to his producing the bank deposit for the value of the stock seized before respondent No.1. The deposit made by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33859 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 27.10.2010. Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB