THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17008 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, petitioner, who is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP16 W 1571, has questioned the order bearing Rc.CS1/6A/91/2010, dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Collector (CS), Prakasam District, Ongole. The vehicle in question was seized along with certain stocks on the ground that the same is being used for transportation of rice pertaining to Public Distribution System in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle in question, is not concerned with the seized stock but when he has applied for release of the vehicle, he was asked to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in a nationalized bank for a period of three (3) years pending enquiry into the matter under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the case of the petitioner that there is no reason for imposing bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- without any basis. It is stated that the aforesaid vehicle is only the source of his livelihood and in view of seizure of stock from the vehicle, which was purchased by him by availing loan from a financial company, the petitioner was asked to give bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/-. It will cause great hardship to him. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that under the provisions of the Control Order, the authorities are empowered to impose penalty on the dealers thrice the value of the commodity seized. The petitioner is not a dealer and is not questioning the seizure of stock. As per the second proviso to Section 6-A(1)(c) of the Act, in cases where the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated, it is mandatory to give option to the owner of the vehicle to pay penalty/fine not exceeding the market price of the seized commodities, which were being carried in such vehicle. Total value of the stock, which was seized from the vehicle in question, is only Rs.38,000/-. In that view of the matter, there appears no reason to impose condition of furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- for release of the vehicle in question pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, I set aside the order, dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Prakasam District, so far as the vehicle in question is concerned and direct the respondents to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.38,000/-, which is equivalent to the value of the seized stock, for a period of one year, and the same shall be subject to the final orders to be passed under Section 6-A of the Act. The first respondent shall dispose of such proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th JULY, 2010. Note: operative portion by ‘wire’ already sent. kvni