THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28203 of 2010 DT.12.11.2010 Between: M/s.New Sai Kalyani Traders … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash memo bearing C.C.No.108/2010, CS R5, dated 25.10.2010, whereby the District Collector, Visakhapatnam (respondent No.1) directed release of the seized stock of 410.50 qtls., of rice, subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.9,03,100/-, pending proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and carefully perused the record. The petitioner is a dealer carrying on business in rice. Its business premises was inspected by the officials of the civil supplies department on 11.10.2010 and on verification, it was allegedly found that there is violation of stock to the extent of 79 qtls., between the stock register and ground balance. Following seizure of the entire stock, a report was submitted by the inspecting officials to respondent No.1, on the basis of which, the latter has initiated proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Upon the petitioner approaching respondent No.1 for release of the seized stock, the impugned order has been passed. At the hearing, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even according to the panchanama (a copy of panchanama was furnished to the Court by the learned counsel at the hearing), the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that there is violation in stock to the extent of 79 qtls., and that nothing was found to substantiate the suspicion of the inspecting officials that the petitioner is indulging in clandestine business. He further submitted that the petitioner has offered plausible explanation for the variation by stating that the transactions, which have taken place prior to the inspection, were yet to be recorded in the stock register. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except the alleged variation to the extent of 79 qtls., no other incriminating features were found by the inspecting officials. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice that the seized stock shall be released to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for 25% of the value of the seized stock. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above with a further direction that the release of the stock against the bank guarantee shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act pending before respondent No.1. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35969 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 12.11.2010 VGB