THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP NO.15446 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to declare the order dated 14.7.2008 in proceedings No.G3/924/2008 of the 1st respondent herein directing the Tahsildar, Sultanabad to take possession of the seized stock and hand over 6169.76 quintals of paddy to the District Manager, State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Karimnagar and the remaining stock to be disposed of through public auction as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be a registered partnership firm doing business in rice milling and the owner of boiled rice mill situated at Sultanabad Village and Mandal. On receipt of information that one of the partners of the said mill indulged in clandestine business in fertilizers in the rice mill, the Tahsildar, Sultanabad inspected the premises of the mill and found variation in the quantity of paddy sent by the District Manager, Civil Supplies. On the report submitted by Tahsildar, Sultanabad alleging misuse of paddy, non maintenance of proper records etc., the 1st respondent herein passed the impugned order alleging contravention of Clauses 12, 10 (2) and 16 (i) & (ii) of A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The 1st respondent herein has initiated action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 ( for short ‘the Act’). On such initiation, pending enquiry, the first respondent has passed the impugned order, against which the present writ petition has been filed. This Court by order dated 18.7.2008 in WPMP No.20012 of 2008 while granting suspension of the said order, dismissed another WPMP No.20013/2008 declining to direct the release of the seized stock. The matter has come up at the interlocutory stage and on the consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this matter is being disposed of at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations contained in the impugned order are not correct and the petitioner has not contravened the provisions of the A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. Clauses 10(2) and sub clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 16 of the said Control Order have no application to the facts of the case and that the fourth respondent has no authority to put rice mill under lock and seal. The respondents are not empowered to seize the paddy and also the rice for the purpose of confiscation in the absence of any targets fixed in this regard. He therefore contends that the impugned order is unsustainable. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the enquiry initiated is still pending and that the stock has not been disposed of in view of the interim orders granted by this Court in WPMP No.20012 of 2008. In as much as the enquiry initiated under Section 6-A of the Act is still pending, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a direction to dispose the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act expeditiously would obviate the hardship of the petitioner. The 1st respondent is, therefore, directed to dispose of the proceedings initiated under Section 6-A of the Act within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the proceedings, the order dated 18.7.2008 in WPMP No.20012 of 2008 shall continue. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J rkk Dated: 29-10-2010