IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTHDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22018 of 2007 Between: K. Prabhakar, S/o. Manuswamy Setty, R/o. 34/4, Bhajan Koil Street, Red Hills, Chennai-52. Proprietor, Sriraghu Ram & Co. Chennai. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The Tahsildar, I/C, Bestawaripeta, Bestwawaripeta Mandal, Ongole District. .....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 to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent in Re.CS1/6A/71/2007 dt.9-10-2007 whereunder ordering the 2nd respondent to distribute the 345 bags of rice seized from lorry bearing No.AP16 TW-7050 on 4-07-2007 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Control Order and set aside the same consequently direct the respondent to release the rice of 360 bags in favour of the petitioner and to pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22018 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to be a trader and to have loaded 360 bags of rice in a lorry bearing AP 16 TW-7050 for transporting the same to Yanam. The lorry while on route to Yanam as claimed, was intercepted on 05-07-2007 by the Police at Bestwaripeta and detained with another lorry and seizure ordered on allegation of transporting of PDS rice. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have also been initiated. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 09-10-2007 directed interim disposal of the seized stocks of 34.861.175 metric tones of rice contained in 705 bags which were seized on 05-07-2007. Though Section 6-A (2) of the Act enables an order of interim sale of seized commodities to be passed, where such a course of action is in public interest or the seized commodities are subject to speedy and natural decay, the impugned order does not record any reasons whatsoever. The irrationality of the first respondent’s order can only be appreciated by extracting it. This is how it reads: “…As an interim disposal, the seized stocks of PDS Rice of MTS 34.861.175 in 705 bags may be ordered to be distributed to the cardholders through PDS by the Tahasildar B. Peta and to remit the sale proceeds into Revenue Deposits, pending enquiry into 6A case.” On a true and fair construction of the above ‘reason recorded by the first respondent’ it appears that the availability of power under Section 6-A (2) of the Act is only justification offered by the first respondent for the exercise of power. When an authority claims the availability of power as the sole justification for a decision, it is a text book illustration of arbitrariness. The impugned order is perverse, invites invalidation and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 10-07-2008 Pvks/*