WRIT PET IT ION No. 20172 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in passing the order in E.C.Act Case No.608/2008-S7 dated 4.09.2008 directing the 2nd respondent to conduct open auction for sale of seized stock of 737.00 quintals of red gram as arbitrary and illegal. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioners assailing the seizure, since the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘E.C. Act, 1955’) is pending, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to proceed with the enquiry under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, 1955 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be interim stay of sale of the seized stock. No costs. Kgr
14.10.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT T HE HON'BL E Ms. JUST ICE G.ROHINI WRIT PET IT ION No: 20172 of 2008 Between: Kotha Koteswara Rao S/o. Seshaiah, R/o. Vittamrajupalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur. 2 The Tahasildar, Narasaraopet Mandal, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the action of the 1st respondent in passing the order in E.C. Act Case No. 608/2008-S7, dated 4-9-2008, directing the 2nd respondent to conduct open auction for sale of seized stock of 737.00 quintals of Redgram belongs to the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice, and pass Counsel for t he Pet it ioner: Mr. K.SRINIVAS Counsel for t he Respondent s: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPL IES The Court made the following:
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.