THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38669 of 2014 Dated: 16.12.2014 Between:
Goparaju Nageshwar Rao and others.
.. Petitioners and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Civil Supplies (T.S.) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in proposing to sell 412.80 quintals of red gram and 194.90 quintals of groundnut in open auction, in pursuance of order dated 04.06.2014 of respondent No.2 in ECAC.No.67 of 2014, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (T.S.).
The petitioners are partners in a business pertaining to sale of scheduled commodities. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), were initiated against them. Pending such proceedings, respondent No.2 has passed an order on 04.06.2014, directing interim disposal of the seized stock. However, the fact remains that till conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the stocks were not sold. Thereafter, on 01.09.2014, respondent No.2 has concluded the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and directed confiscation of the seized stock to the extent of 20%. The petitioners filed a criminal appeal feeling aggrieved by the said order and the same is pending. While so, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proceedings, proposing to auction the entire seized stock in pursuance of order dated 04.06.2014 passed by respondent No.2 pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.
As rightly pleaded by the petitioners, the order dated 04.06.2014 of respondent No.2 ceased to exist with the passing of the final order by the said respondent on 01.09.2014. At best, the State is entitled to recover the value of 20% of the seized stock, which alone is directed to be confiscated. The petitioners offer to furnish bank guarantee for the said stock till disposal of the criminal appeal. However, this Court feels that deposit of the value of the confiscated stock is more appropriate rather than furnishing bank guarantee. Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, has fairly agreed for this course.
In the light of the above discussion, the respondents are restrained from selling the seized stock, subject to the petitioners depositing the value of the confiscated stock with respondent No.2 within three weeks from today. On such deposit, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to release the entire stocks to the petitioners. It is further directed that deposit of the amount by the petitioners shall be subject to the result of the criminal appeal pending before the Sessions Court at Warangal.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.48407 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2014 IBL