HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28062 of 2014 Date : 13-11-2014 Between:
Vasavi Steam and Flour Mill, Represented by its Proprietrix Smt. P. Sankeerthi, Visakhapatnam .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the seizure of rice from the petitioner’s rice mill by respondent Nos.4 and 5 under panchanama dated 10-9-2014 and locking the petitioner’s mill as wholly illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.
Though time was granted to the respondents for filing counter-affidavit on three occasions, no counter-affidavit is filed.
The petitioner averred that on 11-8-2014, respondent Nos.4 and 5, surprised the petitioner’s mill, seized the stocks and the mill, finding certain minor variations and that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") have been initiated. The petitioner filed W.P.No.24467 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27-8-2014 with the direction to the respondent No.2 to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act within eight weeks with a further direction not to sell the seized stock and return the B-Form licence to the petitioner to enable it to run the mill.
The petitioner further averred that on 10-9-2014, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have inspected the petitioner’s rice mill and seized the stocks though there were no variations between the physical stock and the book balance and allegedly initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. That the main allegation on which stock and the mill were seized was that the petitioner was running the mill without Form-B Licence. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that its Form-B Licence was valid upto 31-3-2014 and the same was submitted to respondent No.3 for renewal under proper acknowledgement and that the licence was not renewed so far. In support of its plea that it has sent Form-B Licence for renewal two days before the expiry of the licence, the petitioner has filed a copy of challan dated 29-3-2014, which bears the seal of the licencing authority. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the Form-B licence which is renewed upto 31-3-2014.
Under Section 6-A of the Act, where any essential commodity is seized, a report of such seizure shall without unreasonable delay be made to the Collector concerned. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, submitted that the report under Section 6-A of the Act was sent by the inspecting officials to respondent No.2 on 22-9-2014. The expression “without unreasonable delay” in Section 6-A of the Act shall be understood to mean that the report shall be sent as soon as possible and even if any delay occurs, the same must be for proper reasons. No reasons have been forthcoming from the inspecting officials for not sending the report under Section 6- A of the Act to respondent No.2 for as many as 12 days. By no stretch of imagination, the delay of 12 days in sending the report can be termed as “reasonable”. Even from the contents of the panchanama, it is evident that the main allegation on which the rice was seized was that the petitioner does not have Form-B Licence. From the material discussed hereinbefore, it is evident that the petitioner has sent the Form-B Licence for renewal before it has expired. These uncontroverted facts would give rise to a reasonable presumption that the action of the inspecting officials in seizing the rice and causing undue delay in sending the report under Section 6-A of the Act to respondent No.2 completely lacks bonafides. Further more, the petitioner’s rice mill was stated to have been seized. No provision under the Act or the extant Control Order has been placed before this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader which empowers the inspecting officials to seize the mill. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of respondent No.5 in seizing the petitioner’s mill smacks of mala fides.
On the premises as above, this Court holds that the seizure of the rice from the petitioner’s mill as well as the mill by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not only mala fide but the same is vitiated by long and unexplained delay of 12 days in sending the seizure report under Section 6-A of the Act to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is therefore directed to forthwith release the seized rice as well as the mill to the petitioner. He is also restrained from proceeding further with the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the petitioner within one month from today from their personal money.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.35141 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 13-11-2014 AM