The court's decision was based on the need to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and a recent order by a Division Bench.

JUDGMENT

Battu Devanand, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Government Pleader for Home and perused the material available on record.

2. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the seized stock and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of seized Lorry bearing No. A.P.39 TV 4579.

4. The 1st petitioner is the registered dealer in food grains and carrying on business in the name and style of 'Nandi Traders' at Shop No. 23, Poornima Complex Gunj Road, Raichur, Karnataka State. The 1st petitioner engaged the lorry bearing No. A.P.39 TV 4579 belongs to the 2nd petitioner to transport 350 Qtls. of rice from Raichur to Bangarpet, Karnataka State passing through State of Andhra Pradesh. While proceeding to Bangarpet, the 4th respondent intercepted the vehicle on 07.07.2022 at 9-30 a.m., at NH-4, near Renault Show Room, Anantapuramu and seized the rice along with the vehicle, alleging that the rice is PDS rice, under the cover of Mahazarnama and registered a case in Crime No. 169 of 2022, dated 07.07.2020 for the offences u/s. 420 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Basing on the information given by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has submitted the report to the 2nd respondent to initiate the proceedings u/s. 6-A of the E.C. Act.

5. The petitioners submitted the objection cum claim petition before the 2nd respondent on 11.07.2022 to conduct an enquiry into the confession cum seizure Mahazarnama before proceedings u/s. 6-A of the EC Act, as no material is available and no jurisdiction for taking cognizance of the same and to drop the further action. Pending such an enquiry the petitioners sought for release of the seized rice and the lorry. Again on 12.07.2022 the petitioners made another petition to the 2nd respondent to release the seized stock and lorry. So far the 2nd respondent has not release the seized stock and the lorry. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seized rice is not PDS rice and the seized stock of 350 qtls. of rice consigned under Invoice bill, E-way bill and Karnataka permit, dated 06.07.2022 to the consignee Sri Annapoorneshwari Associates, 106 APMC Yard, Bangarupet, Karnataka State. The bills produced before the 4th Respondent by the driver of the vehicle clearly shows the names of the consignor, the 1st petitioner herein and the consignee. The Respondents for statistical purpose seized the rice along with vehicle of the petitioners while it is in transportation without any basis to allege clandestine transaction.

7. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contends that basing on the confessional statement of the driver of the vehicle, the 4th respondent seized the stock of rice as PDS rice along with lorry. Learned Government Pleader further contends that on receipt of credible information, the inspecting authorities conducted search and seized the rice and the vehicle and initiated Police proceedings.

8. Having heard the respective counsel, 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 Section 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. 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 in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the Respondents to release the seized stock and vehicle in favour of the peti