THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30355 of 2014 Dated: 13.10.2014 Between:
B. Gopala Rao .. Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P. Durga Prasad Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in C.C.No.151/2014 G6 dated 23.09.2014 of respondent No.3 to the extent of direction issued by him to respondent No.4 to inform the petitioner that he shall furnish bank guarantee for Rs.7,50,000/- as a condition for release of lorry seized along with 250 quintals of rice.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (A.P.).
The petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing registration No. AP24 W 8357, which was seized at Veeraghattam Village and Mandal of Srikakulam District, along with 500 rice packets of 50 kgs. each (250 quintals). On the alleged information that the said rice was loaded at Sri Kodandarama Rice and Oil Mill and that the same was meant for public distribution system, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) and his team inspected the said mill and seized the paddy, rice, broken rice, bran etc. of the value of Rs.7,66,472/-. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), have been initiated following the seizure proceedings. Subsequently, show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act was issued by respondent No.3 on 23.09.2014 to the owner of the rice mill, the petitioner and also the auto driver from whose possession an auto along with rice was seized. On the footnote of the said proceedings, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to inform the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.7,50,000/- as a condition for release of the lorry.
Feeling aggrieved by this condition, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
As per the second proviso to Section 6-A of the Act, in case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of gods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance. Therefore, at best, the petitioner is liable to furnish bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle seized. The petitioner pleaded that the lorry is of the year 2007 model and that he has purchased the same for Rs.3.00 lakhs. In my opinion, it would be appropriate and equitable if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as a condition for release of the seized lorry.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of respondent No.3 impugned in this writ petition is modified by replacing the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for Rs.7,50,000/-, for which the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee. The bank guarantee so furnished shall remain valid till disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and the same shall be subject to the result of the said proceedings.
The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37954 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th October, 2014 IBL