IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4638 of 2008 Between: M/s Manikanta Enterprises Rep.by its Proprietor Chandolu Venkateswara Rao, D.No.14-4-124 Morispet Tenali Guntur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst.Director of Agriculture Tenali Guntur Dist 2 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Government of A.P,Hyd 3 The Dist Collector Guntur Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.N.BHUPAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for Respondent No.3: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the fertilizer stocks vide proceedings, dated 31.01.2008 and cancelling license, dated 08.06.2007 of the petitioner pending finalisation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal. The petitioner is a retailer in fertilizers. On 19.01.2008, the Vigilance and Enforcement, Guntur Team along with Revenue Inspectors, Tenali and Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tenali inspected the business premises of the petitioner firm and conducted a panchanama. Following the same, stocks were seized and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act have been initiated. Respondent No.1 issued show cause notice, dated 21.01.2008 wherein the petitioner was asked to explain as to why action contemplated under Clause 3(1) of Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 should not be taken against him for conducting business in violation of the provisions of the said Order. Respondent No.1 issued another proceedings on the same day, whereby the petitioner’s license was suspended for a period of 15 days. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 31.01.2008 cancelling the petitioner’s license. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 against the said order and the same is pending. Meanwhile, respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 6-B of the Act calling for explanation against proposed confiscation of the seized stock under Section 6-A of the Act. The petitioner claims that he filed explanation and the proceedings before respondent No.3 are pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending the proceedings before respondent No.3, there is an attempt to sell the seized stock. The petitioner pleaded that if the stock is sold pending the appeal, it will cause an enormous loss to the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met if respondent No.3 is directed not to sell the seized stock till the disposal of the appeal under Section 6-B of the Act. Respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.6023 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th MARCH, 2008 kvni