ANIL R. DAVE, CJ :- The appellants are the original petitioners who have challenged the validity of a common order dated 26th August, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.1 8003 of 2008 and other allied matters.

2. The appeals are admitted and at the request of the learned Advocates, they are finally heard and decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under. As a common order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in these appeals, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Appeal No.936 of 2008 are taken into consideration.

4. The Deputy Tahsildar, Girvel had inspected a Warehouse of ANC Agro Mills/ ANI Warehouse Services situated at Noonepally, Kurnool District, on the basis of some information received with regard to storage/hoarding of Red Gram in benami names and had found that Red Gram had been stored in the said warehouse. He had found that the said food grains namely, Red Gram was stored in the warehouse by some unknown traders in the name of benami farmers. He had seized the stock of Red Gram on 24.7.2008 and it was kept in custody of Sri Atmakur Subramanyam Setty, Managing Partner of Sri Laxmi Agro Fibres (Cotton and Cotton Seed Merchants), Noonepally, Nandyal Town and Mandal. Thereafter, he had submitted his report to the Collector, Kurnool. The Collector, Kurnool found that by storing Red Gram in such a manner, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Pulses (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2007 and the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had been violated. The Collector directed by virtue of the impugned order that the Red Gram which had been seized should be taken possession of and should be disposed of/sold through public distribution system. For justifying the said order, the Collector had observed that so as to avoid natural decay of the Red Gram, he had decided to get the Red Gram sold.

5. Being aggrieved by the afore-stated order passed by the Collector, the afore-stated petitions had been filed by the persons who had given the said Red Gram for storage to the warehouseman. It was the case of the appellants - original petitioners that they were all fam1ers and they had given the Red Gram for storage to the warehouseman.

6. After hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petitions. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting the petitions by the learned Single Judge, these appeals have been filed by the original petitioners.

7. Learned Senior Advocate, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, appearing for the appellants has submitter that the impugned order dated 26th July, 2008 is unjust, improper and illegal for the reason that the Collector had not complied with the conditions incorporated in Section 6-A(2) of the Act.

8. It has been submitted by him that as per the provisions of Section 6-A(2) of the Act, the seized essential commodity can be sold only if the essential commodity seized is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest to sell it. He has further submitted that according to the provisions of Section 6-A(2)(i) and (ii), the essential commodity seized can be sold at a controlled price if any controlled price has been fixed for such a commodity, but if no controlled price is fixed, according to clause (ii), the essential conm10dity should be sold by public auction.

9. It has been submitted by him that upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Collector, Kurnool, it is clear that the Collector did not come to a conclusion that the seized commodity i.e. Red Gram was subject to speedy and natural decay. There is no observation or finding of whatsoever type that the commodity seized was subject to speedy decay. According to the learned Advocate, if the commodity so seized is not subject to speedy decay, no order with regard to sale of the seized commodity• can be pa