HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17883 of 2010 Date: July 26, 2010 Between: M/s. Yogeswar Traders, D.No.4-3-138/10/A, Opp: Municipal Complex, Bhainsa, Adilabad District, represented by its proprietor Nizam- Venugopal, S/o. Sri Ramulu, aged 53 years, R/o.Bhainsa, Adilabad District … Petitioner And The Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad, Adilabad District, and 2 others … Respondents Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner questions notice dated 21-07-2010 issued to him by the first respondent-Collector (Civil Supplies), Adilabad, in case No.CS6/435/2010. The petitioner is a dealer in foodgrains, having been granted licence under A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealer (Licences, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008 (for short ‘the Order’). His business premises was inspected on 13-07-2010 and during inspection it was found that he was not maintaining records, which is in contravention of conditions 2 and 11 of the licence issued under clause 3 of the Order. Based on the same, stock of 50.50 quintals of Fine Rice was seized from him. After seizure, proceedings were initiated under Section 6-A of the Act and the matter was reported to the first respondent-Collector, who, by the impugned order, directed to dispose of the seized stock of Rice in public auction and to remit the sale proceeds to Civil Deposits Head of Account, i.e. MH 8443. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not contravened any of the provisions of the Order and he was possessing valid licence; therefore, no order could have been passed directing to dispose of the seized stock of rice. Whether the petitioner had contravened any of the provisions of the Order is a matter for enquiry by the competent authority. As Rice is a perishable commodity, the first respondent-Collector issued directions to dispose it of in public auction and remit the sale proceeds to Civil Deposits Head of Account. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the stocks are disposed of as much as if he succeeds in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, he will get back the money derived out of the public auction. Hence, I do not find an illegality in the impugned order to grant the relief prayed for. But, as much as proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending before the first respondent-Collector, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to conclude the said proceedings and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months from today. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 28, 2010 MRR