HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39422 of 2014 Date:23.12.2014 Between:
M/s Sri Vasavi Dall Mill, Venugopalapuram Village, reptd by its Proprietor-Smt Atyutha Lakshmi and another.
. Petitioners And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and three others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.S.R.Murthy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside public notice, vide Roc.No.316/2014 CS, dated 15.12.2014, of respondent No.3, whereby he has informed the general public that 509.29 quintals of Bengal gram and 74.40 quintals of Bengal gram dal, seized from petitioner No.1-mill, will be put to public auction on 22.12.2014 at 4 pm.
A perusal of the impugned public notice shows that the same was issued based on order in Roc.No.53/2014G6, dated 04.12.2014, of the District Supply Officer, Vizianagaram.
At the hearing, Sri V.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that according to his instructions, the seized stock could not be sold in public auction on 22.12.2014 due to absence of buyers.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) is unable to trace the power of the District Supply Officer to pass order dated 04.12.2014 as, under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), it is the Collector who alone has the jurisdiction to pass such an order for sale of the seized commodities, pending conclusion of the proceedings before him. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned public notice, based on the order passed by the District Supply Officer in excess of his jurisdiction, cannot be sustained. More over, the facts of the case reveal that the seizure of the stock has taken place on 15.04.2014 and for more than eight months no steps have been taken either to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act or to sell the seized stock.
Under Section 6-A(2) of the Act, where the Collector is satisfied that the seized stock is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest to do so, he shall order sale of the seized stock. The fact that for more than eight months, no order for sale of the seized stock was passed itself shows that the seized stock is not subject to speedy and natural decay. Evidently, respondent No.2 has not passed any order holding that public interest warrants sale of the seized stock.
In my opinion, the respondents were not justified in seeking to sell the seized stock eight months after its seizure without disposing of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Since a notice under Section 6-B of the Act has also been issued, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 concludes the enquiry and passes a final order under Section 6-A of the Act.
Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and communicate the decision taken by him to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then, the seized stock shall not be sold.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.49445 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 23rd December 2014 DR