Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 625 (AP)

M. v. Sunil Kumar VS State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-28

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner challenges the order in Rc.B2.362/2020 dated 01.09.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for release the seized stock on the apparent ground that the seized stock is Public Distribution System (PDS) Rice. 2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s.Sri Sudharshan Traders, Badvel Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, carrying on business of purchasing paddy from farmers and selling the same. While so, on a supply order, the petitioner sent 580 bags of rice in lorry AP 16 TJ 2871 vide invoice No.12, dated 15.07.2020 to M/s.Royal Rub Enterprise, Kuppumutthu Street, Triplicane, Chennai, Tamilnadu State. However, on the way at Nellore, the respondent officials intercepted the lorry and seized the stock as well as vehicle on the allegation that the rice in the lorry was PDS Rice which was recycled and being delivered to Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation under Custom Mill Rice (CMR) without any bills and documents. The said allegation is wild and without any basis as the entire consignment is covered by proper bills. The petitioner filed petition dated 22.07.2020 before the respondent No.2 for release of the lorry load of the seized stock. By proceedings in Rc.B2.362/2020 dated 19.08.2020, the respondent No.2 passed an order for release of the seized vehicle subject to the condition of submitting F.D.R for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for lorry pending finalization of Section 6-A proceedings. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a modification petition on 20.08.2020 and sought for release of the stock and the owner of the lorry also requested the respondent No.2 to reduce the F.D.R amount. In respect of those modification petitions, the respondent No.2 passed orders vide proceedings in Rc.B2.362/2020 dated 01.09.2020 and while allowing the petition of the lorry owner and reducing the F.D.R amount to Rs.2 lakhs for lorry, the request of the petitioner to release the stock was rejected without giving any reason and passing speaking order. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Smt., Kavitha Gottipati and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Smt., Kavitha Gottipati and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Severely fulminating the order dated 01.09.2020, learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently argue that the rice is taken out of the purview of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "EC Act") by way of an order in G.S.R.1041, dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Government of India and infact the State Government also issued G.O.79 dated 29.06.2005 rescinding Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisition and Stocks) Order, 1966 lifting the restriction on movement of rice and therefore neither the rice comes under the purview of Essential Commodities nor its transportation is a violation of EC Act. In that view, the respondent authorities have no right to intercept and seize the stock and vehicle and to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the EC Act. Nextly, learned counsel argued that so far no samples were taken from the seized rice to conduct laboratory test to ascertain whether the transported rice is PDS rice or not. In that view also, intercepting authorities have no right to prejudge that the stock seized was of PDS rice. On this main ground, learned counsel for petitioner sought for release of the stock. Finally, learned counsel for petitioner argued, the respondent No.2 while rejecting the request of the petitioner did not assign any reason for such rejection in his order and hence the impugned order is not a speaking order and cannot be sustained under law. She further submitted that even assuming that the seized stock is PDS rice, when the seized vehicle which was transporting the alleged PDS rice was ordered to be released, on the same analogy, the seized stock is also deserved to be released. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable for differential treatment under identical circumstances. She thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition stating that huge quantity of PDS rice is being illegally transported and therefore the authorities have rightly seized the vehicle and the stock. He prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions and found prima-facie force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner. He prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions and found prima-facie force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner. Whether the stock seized is PDS rice and even if so, in view of the orders issued by the Central and State Governments as referred by the petitioner whether rice is taken out of the purview of Essential Commodities and thereby Section 6-A case is not maintainable are all the issues to be decided during the Section 6-A enquiry. Therefore, it is not apposite to discuss the aforesaid aspects in this writ petition. What is germane for consideration is whether the petitioner deserves interim custody of the seized stock on appropriate terms. In this regard when the impugned order is perused, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent No.2 summarily dismissed the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason. Since the respondent No.2 is a quasi-judicial authority, his order shall be supported by cogent reasons. Hence, the said order does not stand to legal scrutiny. Moreover, the 2nd respondent is not expected to show differential treatment under identical circumstances by refusing to release the stock while releasing the vehicles. 8. Coming to the case of the petitioner, the documents filed along with the material papers shows that the seized stock is covered with supply bills. Therefore, prima-facie the petitioner's contention that he is supplying the stock on the order of the Royal Rub Enterprise at Chennai can be believed. Of course, the truth or otherwise of his claim can be decided only after the enquiry under Section 6-A proceedings. Be that it may, having regard to the prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner and as the stock will be perished if left unattended, the petitioner can be granted its interim custody on suitable terms. 9. Of course, the truth or otherwise of his claim can be decided only after the enquiry under Section 6-A proceedings. Be that it may, having regard to the prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner and as the stock will be perished if left unattended, the petitioner can be granted its interim custody on suitable terms. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to release the seized stock of 580 bags on the condition of petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for fifty percent (50%) of the value of the stock issued by any Nationalized Bank and offering personal bonds for the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the stock to the satisfaction of the respondent No.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.