THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.34421 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Having regard to the short grievance presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner for a direction to the 1st respondent to conclude the enquiry initiated in pursuance of the impugned panchanama dated 10.10.2011 and not to dispose of the seized stock in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with the consent of both the counsel at the admission stage. The petitioner claims to be a dealer holding a licence under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. The Tahsildar, Mopidevi Mandal, at Mopidevi, Krishna District, the 2nd respondent herein, along with his team, inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 10- 10-2011 and seized the stocks of (i) 38.10 Qts. Of Black Gram; (ii) 13.50 Qts. Of Black Gram Dal; (iii) 4.00 Qts. Of Black Gram (DS); (iv) 64.00 Qts. Of Gr-A Rice; (v) 1.00 Quintal of Sugal; & (vi) 0.08 Qts. Of Green Gram along with auto bearing No.AP 16 TA 0203 alleging that the petitioner does not possess foodgrain licence. A report to the said effect is said to have been laid before the Joint Collector, Krishna District, the 1st respondent herein, for appropriate action under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the said seizure and also for release of seized stock as well as Auto, the petitioner has filed a petition on 14-10-2011 before the Joint Collector - Respondent No.1 and the Joint Collector by his order dated 08-12-2011 released the Auto, but however, by his order dated 12-12-2011 while rejecting the plea of the petitioner to release the seized stock, directed the Respondent No.2 to dispose of the stock. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 12-12-2011 passed by the 1st Respondent by contending that the allegations in the panchanama are untrue and that he is prepared to participate in the enquiry and defend his case. It is further submitted that if the seized stocks are disposed of in pursuance to the impugned order, he would suffer grave and irreparable loss. The learned counsel therefore submits that it would suffice if the 1st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a time frame and not to dispose of the stock till the conclusion of enquiry. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has no objection in granting such direction. Having regard to the short grievance presented by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to conclude the enquiry pursuant to the panchanama dated 10.10.2011 and pass appropriate orders as per law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till orders are passed, the seized stock shall not be sold. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.42837 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 28th December, 2011. skmr