THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40577 of 2014 Dated: 30.12.2014 Between:
Jangala Sadasivudu and another.
.. Petitioners and The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents : GP for Civil Supplies (TG) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to sell 650.35 quintals of rice and 8.00 quintals of broken rice, seized on 08.11.2013 by the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Warangal in pursuance of order dated 29.09.2014 in ECAC.No.227 of 2013 of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners are partners of M/s. Sri Venkata Laxmi Narasimha Traders of Mahabubabad Mandal in Warangal District. They have taken M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Binny Rice Mill of Anantharam Village, Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal District, on lease. On 07.11.2013 and 08.11.2013, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Warangal along with other officials inspected the petitioners’ rice mill and seized the above-mentioned quantities of rice and broken rice on the allegation that they have been dealing in PDS rice. Following the said seizure, a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was registered as ECAC.No.227 of 2013 by respondent No.2. After holding enquiry, respondent No.2 has passed an order on 29.09.2014, confiscating the entire stocks worth Rs.9,81,925/-. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2014, under Section 6-C of the Act, in the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. The petitioners have also filed an application for stay in the said appeal. As the lower Court felt that it has no power to pass an interim order in an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act, the same is stated to have not been numbered. In the meantime, apprehending that the confiscated goods may be sold by the respondents, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that sale of stocks in open market may cause financial loss to the petitioners. As the goods have been under seizure for more than one year, their continued detention may also cause deterioration in their quality and that would not enure to the benefit either to the petitioners or to the State. The interests of the petitioners as well as the State could be protected, if the confiscated goods are released to the petitioners subject to the latter furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for the value of the confiscated goods i.e., Rs.9,81,925/-, which would firmly secure the interests of the State. In the event of the petitioners being unsuccessful in the pending appeal, the State can straight away recover the value of the confiscated goods by encashing the FDR.
In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to release the confiscated goods to the petitioners, subject to the latter furnishing the original FDR for a sum of Rs.9,81,925/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioners fail to furnish such receipt within the above-stipulated time, the respondents shall be free to dispose off the confiscated goods.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.50876 of 2014, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30.12.2014 v v