Judgment : This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing 272 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs, belong to the 1st petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belong to the 2nd petitioner through proceedings dated 11.11.2013 as illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is having agricultural lands at Vatambedu Village and his father is also an agriculturist. As the paddy yielded from the 1st petitioner’s land was drenched and discoloured, no trader came forward to purchase the same due to which the petitioner converted the same into rice and realized 272 bags each weighing 50 kgs and with a view to sell the same at Nellore, he engaged 2nd petitioner’s lorry bearing No.AP 05 X 3049. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner loaded the rice into lorry on 10.11.2013. While the said lorry along with the stock was proceeding to Nellore, it was stopped by the 3rd respondent near APL Factory on NH-5 and the said lorry along with the stock were seized on suspicion that the rice belongs to PDS rice and registered a case in Crime No.216/2013 against the driver. But the petitioner contends that the rice loaded in the lorry is not PDS rice. Aggrieved by the seizure, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure made by the 3rd respondent is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. As per clause 17 of AP Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 or as per clause 16 of AP State Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2008, (hereinafter known as Control Order) the power of search and seizure is conferred on any office of the police department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. As the 3rd respondent is in the rank of ASI, he has no power either to search or seize the schedule commodities and therefore, he has no authority of law or jurisdiction to seize the vehicle as well as the stocks. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has kept the seized lorry and stock in the Police Station. As the 3rd respondent is in the rank of ASI, he has no power either to search or seize the schedule commodities and therefore, he has no authority of law or jurisdiction to seize the vehicle as well as the stocks. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has kept the seized lorry and stock in the Police Station. On receipt of the letter from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent sent a report under Section 6-A of EC Act to the 1st respondent and handedover the stock to the in-charge. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition dated 21.11.2013, before the 1st respondent for release of stock and the lorry contending that he is an agriculturist and rice loaded in the lorry is resultant of paddy realized in their lands and stating that the 3rd respondent illegally seized the stock along with the lorry without having authority of law but the 1st respondent had not passed any orders. In support of this contention, he relied on judgment reported in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District and another v. Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, YSR Kadapa District and others ( 2013 (4) ALD 241 ). Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. In this case, admittedly seizure is made by the 3rd respondent but as per clause 17(1) of Control Order, 2008, certain officers of different departments are empowered inter alia to seize the stocks. As regards the Police Department it is the officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, within their respective jurisdictions, who are authorised to exercise this power. As per clause 16 of AP State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the 3rd respondent is not authorised to exercise the power of search and seizure of the stocks. This Court in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District and another v. Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, YSR Kadapa District and others (1 supra) held that seizure made by Head Constable of Police Department is without jurisdiction and quashed the seizure. In the present case also, the seizure was made on suspicion. In view of the above it is clear that seizure made on 11.11.2013, of 272 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belonging to 1st and 2nd petitioner respectively is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. In the present case also, the seizure was made on suspicion. In view of the above it is clear that seizure made on 11.11.2013, of 272 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs and the lorry bearing No. AP 05 X 3049 belonging to 1st and 2nd petitioner respectively is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. Hence the same is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the seized stocks to the 1st petitioner and the lorry to the 2nd petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.