APHC010359412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19091/2026 Between: 1. SRI VALLI RICE MILL, A ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, S ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide Rc.B2/175/2026, dated 21.06.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. Page 2 of 5 2. Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appeared for the respondents. 3. The Joint Collector and the Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, vide proceedings in Rc.No.113/2025-S2, dated 06.11.2025, conducted a public auction in respect of 1504.20 quintals of PDS rice. Smt. P. Srilaksmi, Proprietor of M/s Sri Uma Maheswara Rice Traders, Ponnuru Road, Guntur, was the successful bidder for an amount of Rs.34,59,660/-. The Joint Collector and the Addl. District Magistrate, Guntur, directed the Civil Supplies Deputy Tashildars concerned to hand over the stock available with MLS points and various rice millers / F.P. shops to the highest bidder. The receipts were filed along with the writ petition as Ex.P8. (a) Out of the stock purchased, M/s Sri Uma Maheswara Rice Traders sold 350 quintals in favour of Sri Valli Rice Mill, Main Road, Vatticherukuru, Ananthavarappadu, Guntur District. The bill of supply was filed as Ex.P5. The same was informed to the Joint Collector, Guntur, vide Ex.P6. Sri Valli Rice Mill, represented by its Proprietor, in turn, sold 340 quintals to Nagesh Enterprises vide Ex.P4. The e-Way bills were also issued to that effect. (b) While the stock is under transport to Chennai through vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No.AP39 T 3519, the same was intercepted at Nellore on 10.05.2026 at about 08.30 pm. Since no staff were available to conduct a Panchanama, the vehicle along with the stock was kept at Venkatachalam Police Station. Thereafter, a panchanama was conducted on 11.05.2026 (Ex.P2). (c) The petitioners filed an application vide Ex.P3 before the respondent No.2 under Section 6-E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’), for release of rice along with the vehicle. The petitioners specifically pointed out in the application about the auction conducted by the Joint Collector, Guntur; purchase of stock by M/s Sri Uma Maheswawra Rice Traders; purchase of 350 quintals by Sri Valli Rice Mill and in turn, selling of 340 quintals to Nagesh Enterprises etc. The said application was filed on 20.05.2026. The respondent No.2, by the proceedings impugned, ordered to release the aforementioned vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.3,00,000/-. In respect of the seized stock, the authority negatived the claim. 4. Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, would submit that Ex.P7, the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Guntur, contains certain conditions. 5. As seen from the proceedings impugned, respondent No.2, did not advert to any of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the application filed under Section 6-E of the Act vide Ex.P3. The learned respondent No.2 should have at least contacted the learned Joint Collector, Guntur, regarding the particulars mentioned in Ex.P3. That apart, keeping the application pending for days together, in the facts of this case, is also unjustifiable. 6. Time and again, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have been pointing out that the order of an authority should contain reasons. The reasons are the heart and soul of the order passed by an authority. In the State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jai1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same, it becomes lifeless. However, the proceedings impugned neither indicate addressing the contentions raised by the petitioners in the application filed vide Ex.P3, nor the reasons. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned respondent No.2 failed to apply its mind to the material before the authority. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the writ petition pending, inviting a counter-affidavit, will not serve any purpose. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following conditions: 1 (2008) 15 SCC 711 (i) The proceedings impugned vide Rc.B2/175/2026, dated 21.06.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2. (ii) Learned respondent No.2 shall pass a speaking order by considering the Ex.P3 application and the other material/relevant documents filed, if necessary, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to put forth their case, within a week from today. (iii) If the learned respondent No.2 fails to pass a speaking order within the time stipulated, learned respondent No.2 shall release the vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No.AP39 T 3519 along with stock seized under Ex.P2 Panchanama, to the petitioners. This court consciously fixed the time, keeping in view the date of seizure of the vehicle and stock and the order passed, impugned in the writ petition, after considerable time. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 14.07.2026 TVN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.19091 OF 2026 Date: 14.07.2026 TVN