Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 118 (AP)

Malepati Venkata Suneel Kumar v. State of AP

2020-02-13

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U Durga Prasad Rao, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 in seizing the 316 bags of ragi, 337 bags of rice, 980 empty plastic bags and one electronic weighing machine on 21.12.2019 belonging to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "EC Act") and orders made there under and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to take any action pursuance of the illegal seizure. 2. The petitioner's case briefly is thus. The petitioner deals in food grains such as paddy, rice, dals and millets in the name and style of Sri Sudharshan Traders. He purchases above commodities from ryots and sells to different traders and kirana shops, hotels etc. The petitioner's office is located in D.No.5/10, Gandla Street, Badvel and his godown is situated at D.No.2-2-269, Bachusubramanyam Old Oil Mill, Ruparampeta, Badvel. 3. While so, the petitioner purchased the following commodities. (i) 440 bags of ragi each weighing 50 Kgs i.e., 220 qtls from SKLNS Mines and Mineral Exports, Kakkalapalli Rural, Ananthapur on 01.12.2019 vide Tax Invoice No.ATP 037, dated 01.12.2019. (ii) 440 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kgs i.e., 220 qtls on 04.12.2019 vide Tax Invoice No.ATP 042, dt.04.12.2019 from the above traders. Both the above commodities were stored in his godown by the petitioner. There was a opening balance of 30 bags of ragi as on 01.12.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner's sold 150 bags of ragi on different dates between 05.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 and thus the closing balance as on 09.12.2019 was 320 bags of ragi out of which 4 bags were damaged and hence remaining bags were 316. The opening balance of rice as on 04.12.2019 was 115.70 qtls and the petitioner sold 167.20 qtls of rice between 15.12.2019 and 18.12.2019 and the closing balance as on 18.12.2019 was 168.50 qtls. There were no sales from 19.12.2019 as the petitioner went to Nellore for his health check up. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the Vigilance and Enforcement officials visited the petitioner's godown on the evening of 20.12.2019 and seized the same and went away. There were no sales from 19.12.2019 as the petitioner went to Nellore for his health check up. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the Vigilance and Enforcement officials visited the petitioner's godown on the evening of 20.12.2019 and seized the same and went away. Again, they came along with respondent No.4 on 21.12.2019 and broke open the lock and seized the commodities available in the godown i.e., 316 bags of ragi and 337 bags of rice on the allegation that some of the ragi bags contained stamp of APSCSC and the remaining stock was in white and colour plastic bags. The stocks were seized on a mere allegation that they were government subsidized commodities. For the purpose of effecting seizure, the Vigilance authorities and respondent No.4 have not followed the due procedure contemplated under Section 100 Cr.P.C. The respondent No.4 did not take any samples at the time of seizure to send for analysis to confirm that the seized stock are meant for public distribution. This action of respondent No.4 is illegal and capricious. No bag in the godown contained any stamp of APSCSC as alleged in the panchanama. The stocks were seized in the absence of petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to place concerned bills and stock registers for inspection. The petitioner's brother has nothing to do with the stock and a criminal case was foisted against him and his brother with all false allegations. The petitioner has taken the godown on rent from its owner Bachu Subramanyam under a Rent-kararnama dated 01.10.2019. As per the information of the petitioner, so far, no case is booked against the petitioner under Section 6-A of EC Act since there is no violation in that regard. The petitioner submitted a petition dated 17.01.2020 before the respondent No.2 for release of the seized stock but no order has been passed yet. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. The petitioner submitted a petition dated 17.01.2020 before the respondent No.2 for release of the seized stock but no order has been passed yet. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. Reiterating the writ petition averments, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently argue that rice is taken out of the purview of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by order GSR 104 (E) dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Government of India and State Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 29.06.2005 rescinding A.P. Paddy and Rice (Requisition and Stocks) Order, 1966 lifting the restriction on movement of rice and therefore transportation of the rice is no more an offence. While admitting that the authorities can take action under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short, "Control Order, 2018") if the rice is a PDS rice, however, would contend that so far the respondents have not initiated any proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act or under the Control Order, 2018 which shows that the authorities are well aware that there is no contravention of EC Act and Control Order, 2018. He would strenuously argue that the allegation that some of the ragi bags stored in the godowns of the petitioner contain stamp of APSCSC is a myth and concoction to seize the stock of the petitioner and to foist a false case for statistical purpose. He thus, prayed to allow this writ petition. 7. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader while supporting the seizure of the ragi and rice bags on the ground that some of those bags contained stamp of APSCSC which indicates that stock relates to Public Distribution System. 8. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 9. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions. The first contention of the petitioner is that the rice is taken away from the purview of Essential Commodities and as such there can be no restriction for trading and transporting of the rice. In that view, the authorities cannot initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of EC Act. He placed reliance on a decision in Sri Sai Traders represented by its Proprietor and others vs. Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada and others, (2006) 4 ALT 758 . In that view, the authorities cannot initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of EC Act. He placed reliance on a decision in Sri Sai Traders represented by its Proprietor and others vs. Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada and others, (2006) 4 ALT 758 . Admittedly, so far the respondents have not initiated any proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6-A of EC Act. The record shows that on the complaint of respondent No.4, the Police of Badvel Police Station registered a case in Crime No.431 of 2019 under Section 420 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC and Section 7(1) of EC Act against the petitioner and another. Therefore, at this juncture there is no need to discuss whether the respondent authorities under law are empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of EC Act against the petitioner or not. 10. As stated supra, the only case pending against the petitioner is the Crime No.431 of 2019 which is under investigation. In that view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the respondent No.2 can be directed to release the seized stock to the petitioner on suitable conditions. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to release the seized ragi and rice bags on petitioner depositing or offering bank guarantee issued by any Nationalized Bank equivalent to 50% of the value of the seized stock to the satisfaction of respondent No.2 within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.