HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.NOS. 6090, 8155 AND 20948 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:-
In all these cases, the petitioners are the owners of the goods (rice) and they were transporting rice from Raichur, Karnataka State to Tamilnadu State in the course of their business and when the goods were passing through the State of Andhra Pradesh at Puttoor road on 09.03.2009, the lorries containing goods were seized on the ground that the lorry drivers were not having original release certificates issued by the Government of Karnataka, but they were carrying only xerox copies. Cases under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were booked and the lorries were seized under the panchanama dated 10.03.2009.
02. The petitioners state that the rice in Karnataka is covered by the Karnataka Rice Milling Regulation and Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1999 (for short ‘the Order’), and the miller has option to give levy of 33.33% of the quantity of each variety of rice obtained from hulling of the paddy on his account every day from the commencement of the order as stipulated under Clause 3(1) of the Order or to sell a fixed quantity of such variety of rice during such period in such installments as may be agreed upon between him and the Deputy Director as contemplated under Clause 3(2) of the Order. If the miller opted for giving daily levy, release certificate for disposal of the levy free rice will be issued by the Tahsildar under Sub-clause 3 of Clause 7 of the Order. The petitioners opted for giving a fixed quantity for every month and accordingly, release certificates were issued. The Union of India removed the restrictions on holding, movement and sale of food stuffs, and the millers are free to sell the rice anywhere in India. The petitioners wanted to sell the levy free rice in Tamilnadu and for the said purpose, the lorries were loaded with rice at Raichur and were proceeding to Tamilnadu on the date of the seizure. Immediately after seizure, the petitioners approached the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Raichur, who issued a letter dated 12.03.2009 to the second respondent giving and explaining the rules pertaining in Karnataka and requested him to release the lorries. The petitioners also filed a petition before the Joint Collector for release of the lorries on 12.03.2009 itself.
03. The petitioners further state that there were no restrictions for buying, selling, movement of rice on and after coming into force the order of the Central Government called Removal of (Licensing Requirements, Stocks, Limits and Movement Restriction) on Specified Food Stuffs Order, 2002 and there is no law prohibiting interstate transport or trade of rice and therefore, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.
04. The petitioners also submitted letters dated 09.03.2009 and 12.03.2009 addressed by the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Raichur to the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), ICP Naraharipet, Chittoor District and to the Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor District, respectively, explaining the position and they also relied on sub-Clause 8 of Clause 7, which says that every vehicle carrying the levy free rice on the strength of release certificate carry a photo copy of the release certificate and hence, carrying a photo copy of the release certificate is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in VINAYAKA AGRO
[1]
PRODUCES v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER( ), wherein it was held that intercepting the lorry on the way in Andhra Pradesh, in which State the owner of the goods is not a dealer and subsequent confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty was held to be illegal. This decision was followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2012 in W.P.No.31310 of 2011 in BANGARU SRINIVASA AGRO FOODS, GADWAL ROAD, RAICHUR, KARNATAKA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, wherein it was held that in the absence of any law prohibiting transportation of rice from Karnataka State to Orissa State, the authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot intercept and seize the stock while passing through the State of Andhra Pradesh.
06. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in these batch of cases, only in few cases proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were initiated and in rest of the cases, no such proceedings were taken up. However, in all the cases, the lorries were released and the seized raw rice was also released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the third respondent.
07. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the clear legal position, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, initiated against some of the petitioners are quashed. In view of release of the lorries and the seized goods, no orders are required in respect of them, and personal bonds issued to the third respondent are discharged. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand dismissed.
11-07-2014 TSNR A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J
[1]
1996(3) ALD 17 (DB)