The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36813 of 2014 Dated 02.12.2014 Between:
Suggala Naveen Rama Chandra Kumar and another …Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.VHVRR.Swamy 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 23 quintals of rice along with goods carriage- LMV bearing registration No.AP 16 TG 0649 under Panchanama, dated 30.10.2014, as null and void.
On 30-10-2014, the above-mentioned vehicle was seized along with 23 quintals of rice by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Chatrai Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, on suspicion that the said rice was meant for public distribution. The petitioners averred that while the seized vehicle belongs to petitioner No.1, the seized stock of rice belongs to petitioner No.2, who is no other than the wife of petitioner No.1. They have also pleaded that there is no evidence to show that the seized stock of rice is meant for Public Distribution.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no provision under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), or the extant Control Orders, which prohibit sale of the rice meant for public distribution in market by persons other than the fair price shop dealers.
In my opinion, the dispute raised by the petitioners in this Writ Petition needs to be adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. However, the petitioners are stated to have filed an application, on 03-11-2014, before respondent No.2 seeking release of the seized vehicle and the stock, pending conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. A copy of the acknowledgment evidencing filing of such application has already been filed by the petitioners. As no orders are stated to have been passed thereon for the last one month by respondent No.2, continued detention of the seized vehicle, will result in deterioration of its condition and value. Similarly, sale of the seized stock pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act may cause loss to petitioner No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to release the seized vehicle to petitioner No.1 on his furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Respondent No.2 is also directed not to sell the seized stock till completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. He is also directed to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pass a final order within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.46075 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 2nd December, 2014
LUR