HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40307 of 2014 Date:29.12.2014 Between: M.Venkateswarlu Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy . Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Hyderabad and three others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Sudhakar 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 declare the action of respondent No.4, in seizing the petitioner’s lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 X 0077 on 07.09.2014, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh).
This case reveals bizarre facts. As many as 27 lorries laden with paddy, rice, broken rice, raw rice and Bengal gram were intercepted and seized on one day i.e., on 08.09.2014 under the jurisdiction of two Police Stations, viz. , Venkatachalam and Manubolu. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) appear to have been initiated. The then District Collector, SPSR Nellore has passed order in proceedings, vide Rc/B/528/2014, dated 13.09.2014, whereby while directing sale of 1,420 quintals of raw rice, 3,983 quintals of boiled rice, 241.25 quintals of bengal gram and 525 quintals of paddy, he has directed release of 23 lorries to their owners on their furnishing bank Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) for Rs.10 lakhs for each lorry. It appears, the owners of the seized stocks have approached respondent No.2 with petitions for modification of the order passed by him. A series of orders appear to have been passed by respondent No.3 accepting their request and modifying the order passed by respondent No.2 by directing release of the seized stocks, instead of selling the same as directed by respondent No.2, subject to the owners of the seized paddy, rice, raw rice, boiled rice and Bengal gram, furnishing FDRs to the extent of 25% of the value of the seized stocks.
The present case is concerned with seizure of lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 X 0077 which was loaded with 241.25 quintals of bengal gram. The petitioner has pleaded that he along with certain persons claiming to be ryots and the owners of the said stock has filed a petition on 15.09.2014 before respondent No.2, However, respondent No.3 vide her proceedings No.Rc/B/2014, dated 27.09.2014, directed release of the seized bengal gram on imposition of penalty of Rs.12,500/- representing 10% of the purported value of the seized stock. As no release order was passed by respondent No.3 in respect of the lorry belonging to the petitioner, he has filed this Writ Petition.
At the outset, this Court is unable to comprehend the nature of order, dated 27.09.2014, passed by respondent No.3, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner. Before referring to the contents of the said order, this Court feels that something seriously went wrong in the entire process leading to passing of order, date 27.09.2014, by respondent No.3. When respondent No.2 has exercised his jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and passed orders directing disposal of the seized stocks, this Court is unable to understand as to how respondent No.3 came to deal with the petitions, more so, when those petitions were filed for reviewing the order passed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 has reviewed the orders passed by respondent No.2 by recalling the direction issued for sale of the seized stocks and directed their release, subject to certain conditions. Worse is the case relating to bengal gram. The quantity of Bengal gram seized is 241.25 quintals. Interestingly, in panchanama, dated 08.09.2014, its value is shown as Rs.1,25,000/-. It is common knowledge that each kilogram of bengal gram costs not less than Rs.40/- to Rs.50/- in open market. It is not known how the value of 241.25 quintals of Bengal gram is shown as Rs.1,25,000/- in the panchanama and respondent No.3 readily accepted such value.
Be that as it may, more curious is the order passed by respondent No.3. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
“Hence, pending enquiry in the case, the interim orders passed earlier regarding the following case relating to Bengal gram stocks is hereby modified (in view of) to control the prices in open market, imposed a penalty of Rs.12,500/- @ 10% value of seized stocks treating it as a first offence and warned not to repeat the same in future.”
It is not clear from the above reproduced order, whether the same is a final order letting off the owner of the seized stock with a penalty of Rs.12,500/- or the same is only interim in nature, pending enquiry under Section 6- A of the Act. As the order of respondent No.3 uses both the expressions “pending enquiry” and “penalty” which contradicts each other, the said order suffers from serious ambiguity. This Court, therefore, feels that a thorough enquiry into the conduct of respondent No.3 requires to be held by respondent No.1. Without expressing any opinion, this Court, therefore, directs respondent No.1 to hold an enquiry to examine the conduct of respondent No.3 and take appropriate decision in this regard.
As regards the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has directed release of the seized Bengal gram, but, she has not extended the similar benefit to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the order of respondent No.3 directing release of the seized Bengal gram is ex facie unreasonable as, the said stock was thoroughly under valued and the same cannot be taken as the basis for release of the seized lorry.
Under Section 6-A of the Act, the lorry is also liable for confiscation along with the goods, with an option to the owner thereof to pay the value of the lorry in lieu of its confiscation.
In this view of the matter, if the petitioner wants release of the seized lorry, he has to furnish bank guarantee for its value.
Considering the fact that the lorry is of 2006 model, the interests of justice would be met, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs.
The Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. The respondents are directed to release the lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 X 0077 to the petitioner, subject to the latter furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Furnishing of such bank guarantee by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.50558 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
29th December 2014 DR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY