HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19750 of 2010 Date: August 13, 2010 Between: Pallerla Ravi, S/o. Narayana, aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.- Battapelli Potharam Village, Sarangapur Mandal, Karimnagar District … Petitioner And The Joint Collector (CS), Karimnagar District, Karimnagar, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing paddy (HMT variety) weighing about 100.75 quintals, from the petitioner, by panchanama dated 04-08-2010, and also in not passing any orders on the representation dated 07- 08-2010 filed by the petitioner. On receiving information that the petitioner is carrying on clandestine business in essential commodities, the house of the petitioner, bearing H.No.2- 76, Potharam village, Sarangapur Village, Karimnagar District, was inspected by the Assistant Supply Officer, Jagtial with the Task Force Team of Jagtial Division. On inspection, they found about 100.75 quintals of HMT variety paddy therein, worth about Rs.1,41,050/-, and they seized the said stock of paddy under cover of panchanama. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and he is not carrying on any clandestine business of food grains as alleged by the respondents and the stock of paddy is seized by the respondents illegally. It is his grievance that though he made a representation dated 04-08-2010 to the respondents in that regard, no action has been taken. On obtaining instructions, it is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents that pursuant to seizure, respondents 2 and 3 have already initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated 06-08-2010 to show cause as to why action should not be taken for confiscation of seized stock for contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’) and the he is yet to file his explanation. In view of the allegations made against the petitioner that he is involved in clandestine business in food grains, it is for the competent authority to enquire into such allegations and pass appropriate orders. As much as the stock of paddy is seized based on the said allegations made against the petitioner and in view of the fact that proceedings are already initiated under Section 6-A of the Act and pending before the first respondent-competent authority, this court, at this stage, cannot go into the merits of the case and record a definite finding on the allegations made against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file his explanation to the show-cause notice dated 06-08- 2010. On petitioner filing such explanation, the first respondent-Joint Collector (CS), Karimnagar District, who is the competent authority, shall dispose of the proceedings pending under Section 6-A of the Act within two months from the date of the petitioner filing his explanation. As it is stated that the seized stock of paddy is not yet sold, the respondents are directed not to sell the said stock of paddy till appropriate orders are passed in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. It is made clear that in the event of any damage to the stock of paddy seized, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any damages thereon. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 13, 2010 N.B. Communicate operative portion by WIRE at party’s costs. B.O. MRR