C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to MC. No. 221/2012 and quash the order of confiscation, dated 29-09-2012, passed therein by respondent No. 2.

2. I have heard Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (TS) representing the respondents.

3. The petitioner pleaded that he is running a shop, for sale of cotton seeds to farmers for raising cotton crops, in Khammam Town; that, on 22-06-2012, respondent No. 3 along with the Vigilance and Enforcement officials inspected his shop and seized 1532 packets of Brahma BG II brand and 795 packets of Bhaskar 9 BG II brand cotton seeds, only on the ground that there is variation between the ground balance and the book balance; that following the inspection, the petitioner received show cause notice, dated 05-07-2012, under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act); and that in reply thereto, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 21-07-2012. However, respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order on 29-09-2012 confiscating 72 packets of Brahma BG II brand and 160 packets of Bhasker 9 BG II brand cotton seeds, the total value of which comes to Rs. 2,15,760/-. Feeling aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

4. The fulcrum of the petitioners case is that the cotton seeds are no more an essential commodity with effect from 12.02.2007, on which date the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act 54 of 2006), amending the Schedule of the Act came into force inter alia deleting raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed.

5. Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed strong reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sai Seed Agricultural Farms and another v. State of A.P. and others, 1997 (5) ALD 809 (DB) in support of his submission that unless cotton seeds are sold for the purpose of extracting edible oil therefrom, the provisions of the Act are not attracted as sale of cotton seeds for agricultural purposes is covered by the Seeds Act, 1966.

6. The fact that the petitioner was carrying on the business of sale of cotton seeds to farmers is not in dispute. Indeed, the very allegation against the petitioner as could be seen from the show cause notice as well as the confiscation order is that on receiving information that the petitioner was committing certain irregularities in selling cotton seeds to the farmers, the vigilance and enforcement team inspected his shop and confiscated the stocks.

7. Before undertaking further discussion, it needs to be noted that though the amendment Act 54 of 2006 has deleted raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed from the Schedule of the Act, food stuffs, including edible oil seeds and oils, are notified as item No. 3 under the Schedule. Therefore, if cotton seeds are stored and sold for the purpose of extracting edible oil therefrom, undoubtedly, the provisions of the Act are attracted.

8. Now, the point that needs to be decided is whether the provisions of the Act are attracted in respect of cotton seeds, which are sold to farmers for agricultural purpose and not for edible oil purpose.

9. The above point is no longer a Res integra. In Sai Seed Agricultural Farms (cited supra), a Division Bench of this Court has examined the identical issue and after a thorough analysis of the provisions of the Act, the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, which is framed under the Act, and the Seeds Act, 1966, it has summarized the legal position as under:

"In view of what is stated above, it is now clear that while the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a general enactment and so also the orders promulgated thereunder including Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, the Seeds Act, 1966 is a special enactment later in time dealing only with the quality of the seeds for agricultural purposes so as to ens