The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No. 30081 of 2014 Date: 09.10.2014 Between:
Grandhi Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mrs. V. Padmaja Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 and also the consequential order passed by him vide separate proceedings bearing ROC.No.CS1/88/ECA/2014, dated 30.09.2014.
I have heard Smt.V.Padmaja Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) representing the respondents and perused the record.
The petitioner is a licensed dealer in food grains, whose business premises was inspected by the vigilance and enforcement staff on 27.09.2014. Basing on certain alleged variations in different kinds of food grains and oils, the entire stock worth Rs.24,45,813/- was seized by the said Officials. Pursuant thereto, on the report submitted by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Tanuku, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Within three days from the date of inspection i.e., on 30.09.2014, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice under Section 6-B of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the seized stock shall not be confiscated and simultaneously, passed the impugned order directing interim disposal of the seized stock through public auction.
A perusal of the record shows that the variations in the stocks between the registers and the ground balance are marginal in respect of all items except rice. Be that as it may. Since the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to render a conclusive finding on this aspect. Equally, I do not find any reason to set aside the show cause notice, for, respondent No.2 is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act based on his prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner has committed irregularities in conducting business. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned show cause notice and interdict further proceedings before respondent No.2.
As regards the second part of the prayer, which pertains to the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 directing interim disposal of the seized stock, on the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that such a measure is inappropriate. Considering the fact that the variations are too marginal in respect of 11 out of 12 items, interests of justice would be met, if the seized stock is not sold, pending finalization of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, by respondent No.2.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by setting aside the proceeding, in ROC.No.CS1/88/ECA/2014, dated 30.09.2014, issued by respondent No.2, directing interim disposal of the seized stock through public auction. However, the seized stock shall be preserved on as is where is basis till the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are concluded.
As a sequel, WPMP.No. 37593 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 9th October, 2014 LUR