HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38814 of 2014 Date:17.12.2014 Between: S.Sudhakar, S/o S.Krishna Murthy . Petitioner And:
The State of Telangana, reptd by its Commissioner of Civil Supplies Department and Ex-Officio Secretary, Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav 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 action of respondent No.3 in not releasing 113.96 quintals of rice worth Rs.2,05,128/- to the petitioner in pursuance of order, dated 19.09.2014, in Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner has suffered an order of confiscation passed by respondent No.2 in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Feeling aggrieved thereby, he has filed Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2014 under Section 6-C of the Act. In the said appeal, he filed Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2014 seeking a direction to release the confiscated stock. The Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed order on 19.09.2014, directing respondent No.2 to release the confiscated stock to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee in a sum equivalent to the said stock. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that respondent No.2 has not complied with the said order.
In my opinion, the Writ Petition is wholly misconceived because the Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for execution of the orders of the sub-ordinate Courts. The Sessions Court having exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 6-C of the Act can be moved for enforcement of its own order. If no express provision is made for such enforcement, the petitioner is not remediless. The petitioner can move the superior Courts under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for enforcement of the order besides availing the remedy under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishment of respondent No.2 for violation of the order passed by the Sessions Court.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedies.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.48607 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 17th December 2014 DR