The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37388 of 2014 Dated 05.12.2014 Between: K.Ramadevi …Petitioner And State of Telangana rep. through its Secretary Dept. of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad and 3 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.S.Rahul Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of 68.04 quintals of PDS rice, 20.65 quintals of AAY rice, 7 quintals of wheat, 3.54 quintals of sugar and 1.69 quintals of dal, meant for distribution to the card holders of the petitioner’s fair price shop, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to release the seized stocks.
I have heard Mr.S.Rahul Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (TS) representing the respondents.
A perusal of the record shows that the stocks of essential commodities allotted to the petitioner’s fair price shop were seized when they were being unloaded at the premises owned by one Talla Durga instead of at the authorized premises of the petitioner.
At the hearing, it has also come out that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), have been initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner has started repairs of the authorized premises to prevent rats and rodents from causing damage to the essential commodities, she was compelled to unload the stocks of essential commodities meant for public distribution at the premises of her near relative and that there was no intention on her part to secret the stocks with a view to make wrongful gain.
The question whether the petitioner has acted bona fide in seeking to store the stocks of essential commodities at the unauthorized premises or not needs to be decided in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. As the said proceedings are stated to have been initiated by respondent No.2, the petitioner needs to approach the said authority for release of the seized stocks. On such application being filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall take a decision and pass appropriate order thereon expeditiously.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.46805 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 5th December, 2014
LUR