HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38692 of 2014 Date:17.12.2014 Between:
Shaik Mohammed Basha, S/o Mabu Subhani . Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Ramya Krishna 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 condition imposed by respondent No.2, viz., furnishing of bank guarantee for Rs.2,67,904/-, representing the open market value of the seized rice, for release of the petitioner’s lorry, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Ms. K.Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh).
The petitioner claims to be owner of the lorry bearing registration No.AP-7-T-1189. On 11.07.2014, the said lorry was seized along with 210 bags of rice weighing 50 kgs each on the suspicion that the same is meant for public distribution system. Proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated and the same are pending. On 14.11.2014, respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner that for getting his lorry released, he shall furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,67,904/- towards the market value of the seized rice.
Under Section 6-A of the Act, the Collector is empowered to confiscate the essential commodity along with any vehicle, vessel or any other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. However under proviso-2 thereof, a fine not exceeding the market value of the confiscated essential commodity can be levied on the owner of the vehicle.
Viewed from this perspective of Section 6-A of the Act, the direction issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the value of the confiscated stock cannot be found fault with. However, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has given his vehicle on hire to the owner of the rice without being aware of the fact that the same will be used for transporting the alleged PDS rice. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the registration certificate which shows that the said vehicle was registered on 11.04.1990. The date of registration suggests that the said vehicle is almost 25 years old and the same is under detention from July, 2014.
In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice if the amount for which bank guarantee was directed to be furnished by the petitioner is reduced to a reasonable extent.
Accordingly, the order of respondent No.2 is modified by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.2,67,904/-.
Subject to the above modification of order of respondent No.2, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.48446 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
17th December 2014 DR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY