JUDGMENT U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order in Rc.B2/45/2020, dated 14.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the petition to release the seized stock on the apparent ground that the rice seized belongs to Public Distribution System (PDS). 2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner is the Proprietor of Rice Mill, carrying on business in food grains in the name and style of M/s.Sri Dhana Lakshmi Modern Rice and Floor Mill, Kattubadivaripalem, Prakasam District. On the supply order from Sri Chitra Agri Exports, Kakinada for a consignment of 600 bags of raw rice to be delivered at Krishnapatnam Port, the petitioner raised export invoice No.21, dated 07.01.2020 and loaded 600 bags of JAMA brand rice in the lorry bearing No.AP 07 TF 8299 and sent the same to Krishnapatnam Port and while it was about to reach the Port at about 6.00 A.M on 08.01.2020, the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent No.3 and his officials and seized the vehicle and commodity on the allegation that the stock in vehicle was PDS rice. Proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "EC Act") were initiated before the 2nd respondent and the case is pending. Petitioner contents that the stock is not PDS rice and hence the same is not an essential commodity and the authorities have no right to seize the same. The petitioner and lorry owner filed petition on 10.01.2020 before the respondent No.2 for release of the stock as well as the lorry stating that the seized stock was not PDS rice. However, without considering the submissions of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 passed the order in Rc.B2.45/2020, dated 01.02.2020 releasing only lorry but without mentioning anything about the seized rice. Since no order was passed subsequently also, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11998 of 2020 questioning the action of respondent No.3 in seizing the rice and respondent No.2 in not passing any order. This Court in its order dated 24.07.2020 directed the respondent No.2 to pass orders with regard to release of the stock within the period of ten days. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 on 14.08.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner to release the stock mainly on the ground that the driver of the seized lorry admitted that the stock loaded was PDS rice. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 on 14.08.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner to release the stock mainly on the ground that the driver of the seized lorry admitted that the stock loaded was PDS rice. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondents. 4. Severely fulminating the order impugned, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the rice was taken out of the purview of EC Act by way of an order in G.S.R.1041, dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Government of India and infact the State Government also issued G.O.79 dated 29.06.2005 rescinding Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisition and Stocks) Order, 1966 lifting the restriction on movement of rice and therefore neither the rice comes under the purview of Essential Commodities nor its transportation is a violation of EC Act. In that view, he would argue, the seizure of the stock and initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the EC Act are unjust and illegal. Consequently, the order of the respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the petitioner to release the seized stock observing that the seized stock is PDS Rice as per the admission of the lorry driver, even if it were to be true, is legally unsustainable. He further argued that whether Rice comes under the Essential Commodities or not and Sec.6-A proceedings are legally maintainable or not is to be resolved after the enquiry in Section 6-A case but the respondent No.2 cannot prejudge the said aspect at the threshold and reject the release of the stock while releasing the vehicle under similar circumstances. He would also submit that so far analyst report has not been furnished to the petitioner to show that the seized stock is PDS Rice. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable for differential treatment under identical circumstances. He thus, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition stating that huge quantity of PDS Rice was illegally transported and therefore the authorities have rightly seized the vehicles and the stock. He prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition stating that huge quantity of PDS Rice was illegally transported and therefore the authorities have rightly seized the vehicles and the stock. He prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the above submissions and found prima-facie force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. As submitted on behalf of the petitioner, whether the rice comes under Essential Commodity or not and if not Section 6-A proceedings are legally sustainable or not has to be decided after enquiry in Section 6-A proceedings. However, at this inceptional stage, the respondent No.2 is not justified in rejecting the application for release of the stock on the observation that the lorry driver admitted the stock as PDS rice. How far such confession of the lorry driver is admissible is a question of law. Above all, the 2nd respondent is not expected to show differential treatment under identical circumstances by refusing to release the stock while releasing the vehicle. Be that it may, the present position is that Section 6-A proceedings are pending and so far no analyst report is received confirming that the seized stock is PDS rice. In these circumstances, in stead of allowing the stock to be kept idle, its custody can be given to the petitioner on suitable terms. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to release the seized stock of 600 bags of raw rice on the condition of petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for fifty percent (50%) of the value of the stock issued by any Nationalized Bank and offering personal bond for the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the stock to the satisfaction of the respondent No.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.