The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.37761 of 2014 Dated 08.12.2014 Between:
Y.B.Chandra Sekhar and 3 others.
…Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 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 191 quintals of rice, 246 quintals of A-grade paddy, 27 quintals of A-grade rice and 70 quintals of broken rice along with two mini vans bearing registration Nos.AP 16 TA 8136 and AP 16 TA 1605 and a Tata Ace bearing registration No.AP 16 TA 6905, by respondent No.3 after conducting panchanama, on 14-09-2014, as null and void.
A perusal of the record shows that the above- mentioned stocks and the vehicles were seized from the premises of M/s.Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders, which is a rice mill being run by petitioner No.1, who holds a trade license under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2008’). While the seized stock belongs to petitioner No.1, the seized vehicles belong to petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The record further reveals that under separate orders passed by respondent No.2, pending the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), the seized stock and the vehicles were directed to be released to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bank guarantees for certain amounts.
Mr.VHVRR.Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, while stating that his clients have no grievance regarding the conditional release orders passed by respondent No.2, has, however, sought to impress upon this Court that the seizure itself is illegal and that therefore, the same is liable to be declared as such. In support of this submission, he has relied upon Clause 16 of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (for short ‘the Control Order’). Based on this provision, the learned Counsel submitted that under this provision only the authorized officer can enter any premises where the stocks of scheduled commodities are stored and inspect any stocks of scheduled commodities, supply documents or books, accounts or other documents pertaining to dealings in scheduled commodities and, only in that connection, he may seize the stocks for contravention of any of the provisions of the Control Order. The learned Counsel argued that since, admittedly, petitioner No.1 is not a dealer in scheduled commodities, the inspecting officers had no jurisdiction to search the petitioner’s premises and seize the commodities under the said Clause on the suspicion that the same were meant for public distribution system.
The above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is wholly misplaced for the reason that petitioner No.1 is a wholesale licensee under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008. Under Clause 17 thereof, the authorized officers mentioned therein are vested with the power of entry, search and seizure. Even if, during inspection, it was found that the stocks found in possession of petitioner No.1 were meant for public distribution system, under Clause 17 of the above-mentioned Control Order, the inspecting officers are empowered to seize such stocks. In other words, if the Control Order empowers the inspecting officers to seize the stocks on the reasonable belief that the licensee has contravened the provisions thereof, the issue whether any such contravention has taken place or not needs to be adjudicated by the Collector under Section 6-A of the Act.
Indeed, in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. M/s.T.G.L.Groundnut Corporation, Kurnool and another[1], this Court held that even if the seizure is found to be illegal, still under Section 6-A of the Act, the Collector can proceed with the confiscation proceedings, if he finds any contravention of the provisions of the Control Order made under the Act.
The question whether the seizure, in the instant case, is illegal or not has become purely academic for the reason that respondent No.2 had already passed orders for release of the seized goods and vehicles subject to certain conditions, which are acceptable to the petitioners, and the petitioners have not been questioning those orders. Inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending before respondent No.2, the said respondent has to adjudicate the issue whether the petitioners have contravened the provisions of any of the Control Orders and if so, whether the seized stock and the vehicles are liable for confiscation or not.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.47241 of 2014, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 8th December, 2014
LUR
[1] 1995 (3) ALD 226 (D.B.)