The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.40641 of 2014 Dated 30.12.2014 Between:
Sri Balaji Enterprises …Petitioner And State. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Dept., Secretariat Buildings and 3 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.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 seizure of 191 bags of paddy weighing 80 kgs each, 251 quintals of rice, 110 quintals of broken rice and one quintal of bran from the petitioner- Rice Mill, on 29-10-2014, as illegal and the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in passing order on the objections filed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to take further action in pursuance of the seizure and to release the seized stock.
I have heard Mr.V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents.
The petitioner is a trading rice mill. On 29-10-2014, it was surprised by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Srikakulam, along with his staff and the above-mentioned quantities of stocks were seized on the ground that there were variations between the stock register and the physical stock. The inspecting officials also, allegedly, seized the B-Register. The Proprietor of the petitioner has made an application, on 05.11.2014, before respondent No.2 raising objections to the contents of the Panchanama and the seizure made thereunder. He is also stated to have made a representation to respondent No.3, on 10-11-2014, seeking either to return the B-Register or to certify the enclosed proposed B-Register enabling him to run the rice mill. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither of the two respondents has passed any order.
After hearing both the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that as the proceedings following the seizure are stated to be pending before respondent No.2, it is not appropriate for this Court to render any findings on the legality or otherwise of the seizure. However, I am of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought to have passed appropriate orders on the objections filed by the petitioner. Since no such orders have been passed, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 05-11- 2014, filed for release of the seized stock and pass appropriate order thereon, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner’s Proprietor within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till then, the seized stock shall not be sold. Within three days from the date of receipt of this order, respondent No.3 is directed to release the B-Register or certify a fresh B-Register to enable the petitioner to run the rice mill.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.50942 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 30.12.2014 v v