DANDU PAVAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record.

(2.) Having heard the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that subsequent to the seizure of the rice and vehicle, a proceedings under Sec. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, are initiated before the 2nd Respondent, who is the competent authority. The illegality and validity of the seizure has to be decided by the 2nd Respondent in 6-A proceedings. This Court is not inclined to interfere into the 6A proceedings.

(3.) However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the latest order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Onteru Bhaskar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others' 2022 SCC Online AP 348 in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the 2nd Respondent to release the seized stock along with the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on imposing certain condition, to protect the interest of the Respondents, pending disposal of the 6-A proceedings.