IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15937 of 2009 Between: 1 Sri D.V. Vara Prasad S/o. China Subba Rayudu R/o. D.No.568, Purushothampalli, Komarolu PM., Prakasam District. 2 Sri M. Ramayarapu Venkata Ramaiah S/o. Rama Swamy R/o. Porumamilla, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector and Addl. District Magistrate Guntur. 2 The Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) Macherla, Guntur District. 3 / / .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not releasing Lorry bearing No. AP 27 X - 0263 as arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15937 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner who is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 0263 approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition seeking release of the said vehicle. Brief facts are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of transport and the said vehicle was hired by a dealer to transport rice and during the course of transit the same was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police Macharla Town on the ground that the rice contained in the said vehicle is P.D.S. rice. After the said rice and the vehicle were seized the matter was reported to the Collector, who in turn initiated proceedings under section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act. According to the petitioner as he has nothing to do with the rice and he is only a transporter, and according to him as the said seizure of the said vehicle is unwarranted, he approached the Collector and gave a representation dated 1.7.2009 requesting him to release the said vehicle. However, as the Collector refused to release the vehicle, as stated supra, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. Heard both sides. From the facts narrated by the counsel for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and he has nothing to do with the rice seized from out of the said lorry and as it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the only livelihood of the petitioner and if the lorry is not handed over to him until 6 A proceedings initiated under the Essential Commodities Act are completed, he will sustain irreparable loss and injury, this court is of the view that the said vehicle can be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel produced some of the orders of this court whereby this court ordered release of the vehicle without imposing any conditions. Having considered the above situation, this court is of the view that the vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner on condition of the petitioner furnishing third party security equivalent to the cost of the lorry and also gives an undertaking that he will produce the said vehicle as and when required and he will not alienate the same during the pendency of the 6 A proceedings before the Collector and as and when such an undertaking is given by the petitioner the vehicle shall be released forthwith. With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------------- SRI T.G.K, J. 05.08.2009 Kvsn