IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.5067 of 2010 Between: Vuppala Rama Murthy. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Dr. J.Vijaya Lakshmi. Counsel for the respondents: AGP- Agriculture for R.2 to R.4. AGP- Revenue for R.1. AGP- Home for R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- The petitioner, who is a dealer in fertilizers, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by order, dated 2-3- 2010, of respondent No.1, whereby he refused to release 5 Metric tones of complex fertilizer 10:26:26 and 5 Metric tons of DAP seized along with lorry bearing No. AP 27 U 7979. At the hearing, Dr. J.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the reason given by respondent No.1 for refusing to release the seized fertilizers is not germane. She pointed out that respondent No.1 has stated that as there is acute shortage of Urea, the request for release of seized stocks cannot be accepted. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture, on instructions, submitted that the entire stock seized from the petitioner’s possession was handed over to AP MARKFED, which, in turn, allotted the stock to the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Malecheruvu, for sale to the agriculturists. Though I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason for shortage of Urea has no relevance to reject the request of the petitioner for release of the seized fertilizers, which are not Urea; having regard to the fact that the stock was already allotted to a Co-operative Society, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of pendency of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), the petitioner is permitted to participate in the said proceedings. If the petitioner succeeds in establishing that he has not violated any of the provisions of the Control Orders or the Act, he is entitled to receive the value of the seized fertilizers. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of Section 6-A proceedings as earlier as possible. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05-3-2010 Note: Issue CC by 8-3-2010 (BO) MNR