The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37965 of 2014 Dated 10.12.2014 Between:
Vankadara Uday Kumar And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Padmaja Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the proposal to conduct auction of the commodities seized from the petitioner’s business premises, pursuant to mediators report, dated 02-
12-2014, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner pleaded that, on 02-12-2014, the officials of the Civil Supplies Department inspected his business premises and seized the stock of 168.25 quintals of rice. On the same day, the petitioner, allegedly, filed an application before respondent No.2 seeking stay of interim disposal of the seized stock pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Apprehending that respondent No.2 is likely to sell the seized stock of rice, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
After hearing, Smt.V.Padmaja Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP), representing the respondents, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is filed merely on the basis of an apprehension. Considering the date on which the seizure has taken place, it is highly doubtful whether the seizure report was received by respondent No.2, by the time, the petitioner has filed the application not to sell the seized stock. Moreover, if respondent No.2 intends to order sale of the seized stock, he is bound to pass an order under Section 6-A (2) of the Act. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that such an order has been passed. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ petition at this stage. However, if the petition, allegedly filed by the petitioner, was received by respondent No.2, he shall consider the same with respect to the petitioner’s request and pass appropriate order thereon.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.47484 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 10th December, 2014
LUR