HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39325 of 2014 Date:23.12.2014 Between:
Vangaveeti Narasimha Rao, S/o Nagaiah . Petitioner And:
The Govt of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (TS) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice, dated 08.10.2014, issued by respondent No.3 under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).
I have heard Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State).
The petitioner is running a trading rice mill. On 31.10.2014, the officials of the Civil Supplies Department inspected the petitioner’s rice mill and seized 1,623.35 quintals of rice. Following the seizure, the petitioner made an application on 05.11.2014, before respondent No.3 for release of the seized stock. As no order was passed thereon, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.35263 of 2014. This Court, upon recording the statement of the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State) that the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock is pending and that he has instructed respondent No.3 to dispose of the same as early as possible, disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application, dated 05.11.2014, seeking release of the seized stock within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A further direction was given to the effect that till such order is passed, the seized stock shall not be sold. Respondent No.3 was also directed to conclude the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pass a final order within two months from the date of receipt of a coy of the order.
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the grievance that respondent No.3 has issued a notice under Section 6-B of the Act though he has no jurisdiction to issue such notice as, the seized stock was only rice, which is not an essential commodity, and that respondent No.3 has passed order on 12.12.2014 rejecting the petitioner’s application for release of the seized stock.
In my opinion, the prayer to quash the notice issued under Section 6-B of the Act is wholly misconceived for the reason that this Court in Writ Petition No.35263 of 2014 while declining to interfere with the initiation of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act has, in fact, directed respondent No.3 to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and pass a final order within two months. Evidently, respondent No.3 has issued the show cause notice under Section 6-B of the Act in furtherance of the said direction. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relief which runs contrary to order, dated 20.11.2014, in Writ Petition No.35263 of 2014.
As regards the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has refused to release the seized stock, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by him. However, as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act is pending before respondent No.3, it would be in the interests of justice that the seized stock is not sold till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.49341 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 23rd December 2014 DR