( 1 ) THE question of law raised in these petitions is common and, therefore, it would be convenient to, dispose them of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE facts in all these petitions are similar. For appreciating the contentions urged, it may be sufficient if I set out the facts in WP. 1984/73. The petitioner therein, is a licensed dealer in foodgrains. Some of his foodgrains when transported in a truck, were seized by the Sub-Inspector of police, who later brought to the notice of the Dy. Commr. of the Dist tha Dv. Commr. intitiated proceedings to confiscate the foodgrains under s. 6a, Essential Commodities Act. Notices to show cause against the proposed action were issued to the driver and cleaner of the truck. They have submitted their reply and the matter is still pending before the Dy. Commr. ( 3 ) IN 'the meantime, the Sub-Inspector of Police made a report to the Dy Commr. stating that the seized foograins for want of storage facilities were likely to deteriorate and, therefore, they should be disposed of immediately. While accepting that report, the Dy. Commr. passed an order which is impugned in the writ petition. For immediate reference, the said order is set out herein below ;" Order the PSI Almel has seized 76 1/2 bags of jawar alleging that the opponents were found transrporting the seized foodgrains in contravention of Cl. 3 of the Mvsore Foodgrains (Regulation o,f Transport of Foodgrams) order 1966 and PSI has submitted a report requesting to confiscate the seized fooderains under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The proceedings are in progress. The PSI Almel under his letter No. 353 of 73 dt. 18-6-1973 has reported that, the foodgrains have been seized long back," that due to storage of foodgrains for, a longer period and due to moisture etc. , there is possibility that the seized fooderains may deteriorate and therefore the seized foodgrains be disposed of immediately. As reported the PSI due to storage of foodgrains for a longor period and duo to moisture etc. , there is every possibility that the foodgrains may deteriorate if they are stored for some more period. In the circumstances stated above and in the interest of parties i hereby order to distribute, 76 1/2 bags of jawar seized in PSCr. As reported the PSI due to storage of foodgrains for a longor period and duo to moisture etc. , there is every possibility that the foodgrains may deteriorate if they are stored for some more period. In the circumstances stated above and in the interest of parties i hereby order to distribute, 76 1/2 bags of jawar seized in PSCr. 4/1973 among the needy and the weaker section through the Fair Price Shops at Govt. rate and the sale proceeds thereof should be credited to, the pd. Account of the Dy. Commr. till the case under S. 6a of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 is finalised. Sd. J. K. Arora, Dy. Commr. , Bijapur. " ( 4 ) AT the time of issuing rule nisi in all these petitions, this Court directed the Dy. Commr. not to sell the foodgrains in question. After notice to the respondents, the said interim order was modified giving liberty to the Dy Commr. to sell the foodgrains at the open market rate, and to deposit the sale proceeds in his PD. Account till the proceedings under s. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act are terminated. ( 5 ) BEFORE me, Counsel on both sides are unable to, report, whether the foodgrains have been sold as per the interim order made by this Court, or about the progress of the proceedings pending before the Dy. Commr,' they addressed their arguments on the validity of the impugned order. ( 6 ) THE contention that the impugned order is without authority of law cannot be accepted. It is an interim order made by the Dy, Commr. during the pendency of the proceedings before him under Sec. 6a at the essential Commodities Act. The power to pass an interim order like all other temporary orders is merely incidental or ancillary to the final relief to be granted in the case. But where it is not possible to preserve the status quo pendente lite and where the subject matter of litigation is in danger of being wasted, damaged, destroyed or deteriorated, the Deputy commr. would be well within his jurisdiction to sell the same and keep the sale proceeds in his pending account. But this power ought to be most cautiously exercised. would be well within his jurisdiction to sell the same and keep the sale proceeds in his pending account. But this power ought to be most cautiously exercised. It should not be abused or used as an instrument of oppression just to deprive the party from his legitimate right to get a return of the foodgrains when he establishes that the foodgrains are not liable to be confiscated. In these cases, however, there is no scope for such an apprehension. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that there is no facility for the storage of foodgrains for a longer period and due to moisture, there is every likelihood of its deterioration. This opinion of the Dy. Commr. has not been challenged before mo on any ground. ( 7 ) THE other aspect of the question is whether the Dy. Commr. was right in directing the sale of the seized foodgrains to the needy and weaker section of the people through the Fair Price Shops at government rate. ( 8 ) THE object behind that direction appears to be laudable, but it seems to me that the Dy. Commr. was in error in not realising the irreparable injury that is likely to cause to the petitioners or others from whom the, foodgrains have been seized. If the petitioners or others are exonerated in the proceedings under S. 6a, they would be entitled to the return of foodgrains and would then be at liberty tn sell the samp at the open market rale. Or if they are given the sale proceeds, they must be put in such a position as to enable them to purchase the fcoodgrains, if the same, is needed for their personal use. That coud be possible only if the foodgrains are sold at the market rate. It is stated by Counsel on both sides that the Govt. rate is far below the market rate. The lights of the petitioners therefore, would be seriously prejudiced, if during the adjudication proceedings under, S. 6a, their foodgrains were to be sold at the Govt. rate In the premises, it would have been proper for the Dy. Commr. if he had directed the sale of the foodgrains at the open market rate and deposited the sale proceeds in his PD. Account. rate In the premises, it would have been proper for the Dy. Commr. if he had directed the sale of the foodgrains at the open market rate and deposited the sale proceeds in his PD. Account. ( 9 ) IN the result, these petitions are allowed, modifying the orders impugned in each of these petitions with liberty to the Dy. 'commr. to sell the seized foodgrains at the open market rate if he has not already sold the same as per the interim order of this Court. The proceeds of the sale would be subject to the result of the proceedings under Sec. 6a of the essential Commodities Act. No costs, in the circumstances. --- *** --- .s