Telangana High Court
WP/33720/2010 of N. Veera Babu Vs The District Collector on 31 December 2010
MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.33720 of 2010 DT.31.12.2010 Between: N.Veera Babu … Petitioner And The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.Devanand Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.33720 of 2010
DT.31.12.2010
Between:
N.Veera Babu
And
… Petitioner
The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri B.Devanand Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action ofrespondent No.2 in seizing 619 qtls. of rice, 4 qtls. of redgram dal, 7.50qtls. of blackgram dal, 0.50 qtls. of sugar, 0.80 qtls. of greengram dal, 125kgs. of groundnut, 1.40 qtls. of idly ravva, 17 oil tins containing 15 kgs.each and 38 oil boxes containing 16 kgs. each, under mediators report,dated 27.12.2010, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Sri B.Devanand, learned counsel for the petitioner,and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
The petitioner is a food grains dealer. On the basis of aninspection of the petitioner’s shop by respondent No.2 on 27.12.2010, theabove-mentioned stock was seized and proceedings under Section 6-A
of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have beeninitiated by respondent No.1.
The petitioner is stated to have filed an application on 28.12.2010before respondent No.1 for release of the seized stock. His grievance isthat so far his application has not been disposed of.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthough his client has sought for release of the seized stock, he will besatisfied if the seized stock is not sold till the disposal of the proceedingsunder Section 6-A of the Act.
In the light of this submission and the facts of the case, the writpetition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to sell theseized stock till the disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of theAct. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the proceedings within aperiod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42722 of2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
Date:31.12.2010VGB