IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1131 of 2011 Between: M/s. Laxmi Venkateswara Para Boiled Rice Mill (Pvt) Ltd., Govindahally Village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Mahaboobnagar District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1131 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in locking the rice mill of the petitioner since 17.06.2010, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil supplies for the respondents. The petitioner is a rice mill, which was involved in proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said case ended in confiscation of a part of the seized stock vide order dated 21.08.2010 of respondent No.1. Against the order, confiscating the stock, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6-C, which is stated to be pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that in connection with the seizure of the stock, the petitioner’s mill was locked and even after completion of Section 6A proceedings, the respondents have not been permitting the petitioner to run the business by opening the lock. The petitioner is stated to have made representations on 13.11.2010 and 14.01.2011 to the respondents, which are of no avail. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has taken adjournments on two occasions to report instructions to the Court. Today, at the hearing, he stated that though the officials of respondent No.1 office are offering to the petitioner to take back the key, the latter is not taking the key. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a part of the confiscated stock is lying both within the mill and also in the compound of the petitioner mill premises and that unless the said stock is removed, it is neither appropriate nor possible for the petitioner to open the mill and resume the activities. I find justification in the petitioner’s grievance. Once the stocks are confiscated, the respondents are duty bound to remove the same from the petitioner’s mill premises. They cannot use the petitioner’s mill for storing the confiscated goods, as such an action would indirectly prevent the petitioner from running the mill. In view of the above facts, the respondents are directed to remove the confiscated stocks, if any still available in the petitioner mill, within three weeks from today. On recovering the stocks, the petitioner shall be handed over the key and the seals, if any available to the mill, shall be removed to enable the petitioner to run the mill. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.1381 of 201 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2011 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. ES