Judgment :- Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are similar, the same may be disposed of by the following common order. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for necessary direction by way of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the value of the goods which have been seized on 29-1-1995 with necessary freight charges, halting charges, litigation expenses, miscellaneous expense and loss of reputation and interest at 12 per cent for the said amount from 29-1-1995. 3. In as much as the competent authority, who initiated action under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') ultimately found that the seizure effected on 29-1-1995 is bad and directed the authority to return the said goods or value thereof at P.D.S. rate, I am not traversing the facts leading to the seizure and subsequent order of the authority in both the cases. The limited question canvased by the petitioner is in as much as the authority has found that seizure is bad, petitioners are entitled either the actual goods seized or the market value prevailed on the date of seizure in the open market. It is the contention of the petitioners in both the cases that during Section 6-A enquiry all the relevant documents such as certificates issued by the Agricultural Market Committee and other connected Authorities including that of the check-post confirming the fact that the goods in question were in genuine were placed. The goods transported were also duly covered by delivery note (consignment sales), Agricultural Market Committee Receipt, entry in the G.V.R. proper endorsement on the records by the checkpost Authorities. On the basis of the above referred particulars the Presiding Officer in Section 6-A enquiry has categorically held that transaction was bona fide and the seizure of the goods and lorry were not made by the Authority concerned for any valid reason. However, while directing the Authority to seize the rice bags directed payment of value of goods at P.D.S. rate or in the alternative to deliver the goods itself, If the same is available. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in spite of the repeated request this Court has directed the Authority to dispose of the enquiry under Section 6-A within a period of two months, meawhile the rice bags seized were already sold for Distribution System. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in spite of the repeated request this Court has directed the Authority to dispose of the enquiry under Section 6-A within a period of two months, meawhile the rice bags seized were already sold for Distribution System. In those circumstance, the rice bags seized already were not available, hence the Authority has directed the respondents to return the value of the goods at P.D.S. rate. Aggrieved against the said orders, both the writ petitioners have approached this Court for necessary direction. 4. The respondents have filed a separate counter-affidavit in both the writ petitions disputing various averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners. They also contended that as per the provisions of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to market value or any other charges or interest as claimed. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of both the writ petitions. 5. I have heard the arugments of Mr. C. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. As already stated, I need not go into the merits of the case with regard to seizure and the release of rice bags by the Authority after enquiry under 6-A of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in as much as the Authority after considering the case of the petitioners as well as the respondents came to the conclusion that there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act and siezure itself is improper and in those circumstance, as per the order of the Authority, the petitioners are entitled for their commodities or their value. With regard to value, after taking me through the various factual position, more particularly with reference to the conclusion arrived by the Authority, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the value of the rice bags in terms of then prevailing market value in the open market. In support of his above contention he has very much relied on decision of this Court in M. Somasundara Mudaliar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary, W.P. Nos. 12485 to 12488 of 1989 dated 25-2-1992. In support of his above contention he has very much relied on decision of this Court in M. Somasundara Mudaliar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary, W.P. Nos. 12485 to 12488 of 1989 dated 25-2-1992. Almost in a similar circumstance, Raju, J. in the said decision after referring various provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court decided earlier has observed is as follows :- 'I am of the view that the legitimate rights of a citizen to have his property restored or its market value reimbursed cannot be denied on the plea that there is no specific provision in the Act to provide for such restitution or reimbursement. The right of a citizen in this regard is secured under the Constitution in the form of guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order in so far as the respondent directs the payment of the value of the bags seized and disposed of at the levy price rate shall stand hereby quashed and consequently there shall be a direction to the second respondent to pay the respective petitioners the value ascertained in terms of the then prevailing market value of paddy in open market, ....................' 7. The learned Government Advocate wanted to distinguish the said decision stating that in these cases the petitioners could not secure any order from this Court for release of the goods seized. He also pointed out the facts and circumstances in the cases referred above warranted the learned Judge to pass such direction. After going through the entire judgement of Raju, J. referred above and the factual position as seen from the order of the Authority passed under Section 6-A, I am of the view that the said decision is squarely applicable to the present cases. 8. Even though the petitioners have claimed the goods value as well as the other charges viz., freight charge for transportation, halting , charges, litigation expenses, miscellaneous expense, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded that he is not pressing the other claims except the value of the goods to be ascertained in terms of then prevailing market value in open market. I am also not granting any interest as claimed by the petitioners for the said amount. 9. I am also not granting any interest as claimed by the petitioners for the said amount. 9. Under these circumstances, following the decision referred above, there shall be a direction, directing the respondents to pay the respective petitioners the value ascertained in terms of then prevailing market value of the goods seized in open market within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent would fix the market value in the light of an enquiry to be conducted after giving notice to the respective petitioners to substantiate the value of the goods seized by sufficient material in proof of the same. 10. Net result, both the writ petitions are allowed as indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.