IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11607 of 2009 Between: 1 Uppuganti Srinivas Reddy S/o. Anantha Reddy R/o. Kothagattu Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 Tadicherla Thirupathi S/o. Machaiah R/o. Kothagattu Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector (CS) Karimnagar District Karimnagar. 2 The Tahsildar Jammikunta Mandal Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Inspector Jammikunta Mandal Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. 4 The SHO P.S. Jammikunta Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for issuance of a Mandamus to declare seizure of 20 quintals of BPT rice belonging to petitioner No.1 along with auto trolley bearing registration No.AP15 X 5917 belonging to petitioner No.2 under panchanama dated 04-06-2009 as illegal. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the rice and the auto trolley. On the complaint of Youth Association members of Jammikunta Village, one auto trolley bearing registration No.AP15 X 5917 was intercepted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Jammikunta and found that the said trolley was carrying rice of 20 quintals without valid documents. After taking into custody the auto trolley and the rice, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammikunta directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Jammikunta to enquire in detail and submit a report. On 04- 06-2009, the Mandal Revenue Inspector submitted report to the Mandal Revenue Officer. On the basis of the said report, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted his report to respondent No.1 on 04-06-2009. In the said report, he stated as under- “The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Jammikunta has reported that on 04-06-2009 namely Uppugalla Srinivas Reddy, S/o Anantha Reddy, farmer, after milling the paddy in Bhagyalaxmi Mill at Kothagattu and while transporting towards Ramakrishnapur to his brother-in-law house, the Youth Association members have stopped the trolley and enquired about papers. Afterwards Sri Uppugalla Srinivas Reddy, S/o Ananth Reddy approached the Office and submitted the petition stating that it is his own paddy crop. After milling, he hired auto trolley for transporting the rice to house and followed the auto on his own bike. The rice has been kept under the custody and handed over to “Karunya Enterprises” and trolley sent to police station. I have also verified the rice and opined that it is not PDS rice but it is BPT rice.” At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jammikunta clearly reveals that the suspicion on which the stock was seized that the petitioners were transporting rice meant for public distribution was found incorrect and the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector positively proves that petitioner No.1 was transporting rice, which was derived from the paddy crop in his field, after the same was milled in Bhagyalaxmi Mill at Kothagattu. He, therefore, submitted that in spite of the said report, the petitioners’ application for release of the seized stock along with the auto trolley has not been disposed of. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the view that the material available on record, prima facie, shows that the seized stock was not meant for public distribution. However a conclusive finding in this regard can be given by respondent No.1 only in the enquiry to be held under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). As respondent No.1 failed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners on 08-06-2009, and in view of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted to respondent No.1 to the effect that the rice was not meant for public distribution, interests of justice would be met if respondents 1 and 2 are directed to release the seized rice and the auto trolley to the petitioners subject to their furnishing third party security for the value of the rice and the auto trolley. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners shall submit third party security within a period of two (2) weeks from today and within one (1) week thereafter, the respondents shall release the rice along with the auto trolley to the petitioners, which will be subject to the result of the Section 6-A proceedings under the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.14946 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th June, 2009 vrn