ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in seizing of 260 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kgs. belonging to the 1st petitioner and the Eicher transport vehicle bearing registration No.AP02 TA 7269 belonging to the 2nd petitioner under the cover of panchanama/mediator report dated 01.04.2021, as being illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘the Control Order, 2018’) besides violative of the provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same with a direction to the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is the proprietor of the firm styled as ‘Shankar Trading Co.’ and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.AP02 TA 7269. The 5th respondent - Head Constable of Kuderu Police Station, Ananthapuramu District seized 260 bags of rice each weighing 50 Kgs. of the 1st petitioner and the vehicle of the 2nd petitioner under the cover of Mediators report dated 01.04.2021 alleging that on receiving credible information, the vehicle was stopped on Ananthapuramu - Bellary road on 01.04.2021 at 02.45 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Kuderu Police Station. On seeing them, the driver of the vehicle tried to abscond from the scene. Then, the 5th respondent with the help of his staff, chased him and brought him to their custody. On enquiry, he revealed that his name was Dasari Naresh; one Subrahmanyam @ Setty of Alumuru and Teja are his friends; the said Teja used to purchase rice from him, convert it into polished rice and sell it in open market for higher rates; in this process, on 31.03.2021, he purchased rice from the villagers of Kuderu Mandal for lesser price; and while transporting the load to Ananthapuramu in the vehicle, they caught hold of them. Then, on search of vehicle, it is found that there are 260 bags of rice and the total weight of the bags is 10,285 Kgs. Immediately, they seized the rice along with vehicle. Based on the said mediators report, a crime was registered as F.I.R.No.54 of 2021 of Kuderu Police Station for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 7(1) of the Act. The same was informed to the Tahsildar, Kuderu Mandal for necessary action in respect of seized rice as per law. 4. The 3rd respondent - Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu District and the 4th respondent - Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuderu Police Station filed their counters on similar lines stating that the 5th respondent seized 255 bags of rice (sic. 260 bags of rice) each containing approximately 50 Kgs. belonging to the 1st petitioner and the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP02 TA 7269 belonging to the 2nd petitioner under the cover of Mahazernama dated 01.04.2021 in FIR No. 54 of 2021 of Kuderu Police Station for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 7(1) of the Act. The 5th respondent, on credible information, in the absence of the Sub-Inspector of Police who was on investigation duty in Crime No.163 of 2019 under ‘Man missing’ case and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was deputed to Bandobust duties to prevent sand transportation, proceeded to Ananthapuramu - Uravakonda (sic.) highway along with constables and mediators to search the vehicles and noticed the offending vehicle with a load of rice bags. When the driver of the vehicle tried to skulk away, they apprehended him, searched the vehicle and seized the stock along with vehicle under the cover of panchanama. The same was informed to the Tahsildar, Kuderu Mandal to take necessary action under the provisions of the Act and the Control Order, 2018. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in seizing the rice bags and the vehicle. 5. Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that seizure of the stock and vehicle is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and also in violation of the provisions of Clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018. Under the said clause, Officers of the Police Department not below the rank of the Sub-Inspector of Police alone are competent to search and seize the stock. Under the said clause, Officers of the Police Department not below the rank of the Sub-Inspector of Police alone are competent to search and seize the stock. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the reported decision in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District, Rep. by its Proprietor-K.Gangadhara Reddy and another Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, Kadapa District and two others, (2013) 4 ALD 241 and also judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.16240 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 and Writ Petition No.17827 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019, wherein it is held that the police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, within their respective jurisdictions, are alone competent to search and seize the stock, on the reasonable suspicion that the rice are PDS rice as per the provisions of Clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, while reiterating the averments of the counter, submits that as per Mahazernama dated 01.04.2021, on reasonable suspicion that the rice being transported in the vehicle are PDS rice, the 5th respondent along with staff seized the rice bags along with vehicle and informed the same to the Tahsildar concerned to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the Act and the Control Order, 2018. Hence, the seizure could not said to be illegal and without any authority. He further states that in view of the interim order dated 27.05.2021, the seized stock and the vehicle were released as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent to the petitioners and that no cause survives in this writ petition for adjudication. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 vehemently submits that the Head Constable while acting as a Station House Officer during the relevant period in the absence of Sub-Inspector of Police and Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, found that the petitioners/ accused committed cognizable offence and thereby registered the same as Crime No.54 of 2021 under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. and under Section 7(1) of the act and took up investigation. He further submits that as contemplated under Order 452(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual (Part-I, Volume-II ‘A’), a Head Constable in-charge of an outpost or a beat area or check post, without the intervention of the SHO, may take action in offence under special and local enactments, which empower the Head Constable to take action. Further, immediately after seizure of the stock and vehicle, the Head Constable informed the same to the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate. Hence, no motives could be attributed to the Head Constable and he acted bona fidely to prevent the illegal transportation and sale of PDS rice. It is for the competent authority under the provisions of Section 6A of the Act to decide as to whether the rice seized are PDS rice or not based on the evidence adduced. Hence, the seizure of the stock and the vehicle could not said to be illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law. 8. The possession and transportation of PDS rice is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and the provisions of the Act. Hence, the seizure of the stock and the vehicle could not said to be illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law. 8. The possession and transportation of PDS rice is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and the provisions of the Act. But, Clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018 reads as under: “Any officer or person authorized by the State Government or by the District Collector or by Collector (Civil Supplies) the appointing authority or any officer of the Civil Supplies/other State Government departments not below the rank of Revenue Inspector/Checking Inspector/Enquiry Inspector (Civil Supplies), or any Gazetted Officer of Vigilance and Enforcement Department of the State or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, may enter the premises of the fair price shop or any private premises where the scheduled commodities pertaining to Targeted Public Distribution system or other Government schemes are kept/positioned or found in transit and conduct inspection and seize any stocks of scheduled commodities, supply documents or books, accounts or other related document for the purpose of such inspection/seizure for contravention of the provisions of this Order, Officers of Legal Metrology Department, Team of Social Audit appointed by Commissioner of Civil Supplies are also empowered to inspect the fair price shop premises, in regard to weights and measures.” As per the provisions of above clause, the Civil Supplies officers and any person authorized by the State Government or by the District Collector or by Collector (Civil Supplies) are competent to search and seize on reasonable suspicion that the rice being transported are PDS rice. But, in respect of police officers concerned, only the police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police is alone competent to search and seize the stocks, etc. 9. But, in respect of police officers concerned, only the police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police is alone competent to search and seize the stocks, etc. 9. This Court, while dealing with the similar provision under Clause 17(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 in the case of Sri Vigneswara Traders (1 supra), which is para materia or identical to Clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018, held that certain officers of different departments are empowered inter alia to seize the stocks and as regards the Police department, it is the officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, within their respective jurisdictions, are alone competent to search and seize the stock to find out as to whether the rice being stored or transported are PDS rice in contravention of the provisions of the Control Order. 10. Following the said decision (1 supra), this Court allowed Writ Petition No.19041 of 2019 dated 27.11.2019 by setting aside the search and seizure under mediator report dated 04.11.2019 therein, declaring them as illegal and without authority of law. The respondents therein are also directed to release the stock and the vehicle to the petitioners therein. 11. In view of the above discussion and submissions of the learned counsel, this Court found that the provisions of Clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018 empower only the police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of the jurisdictional police station as competent to search and seize the stock on a reasonable suspicion that the stock being stored or transported are PDS rice. On such seizure, immediately he has to inform to the concerned officers to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the Control Order, 2018 and under the provisions of the Act. 12. This Court is not persuaded to accept the contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Home and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that the Head Constable, In-charge of the Police Station, is empowered to search and seize the stock and vehicle on reasonable suspicion that the PDS rice are being transported. 12. This Court is not persuaded to accept the contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Home and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies that the Head Constable, In-charge of the Police Station, is empowered to search and seize the stock and vehicle on reasonable suspicion that the PDS rice are being transported. The further contention of the learned Government Pleader for Home that Order 452(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual empowers the Head Constable in-charge of an outpost or a beat area or check post, without the intervention of the SHO, may take action in offence under special and local enactments. But, the Head Constable is not specifically authorized or empowered to deal with the PDS stock. 13. The learned Government Pleader for Home also contended that as per the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C., any police office may seize any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. But, such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. Therefore, such power could not be taken away by the provisions of the Control Order, 2018. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Code of Criminal Procedure is a general procedure Code, whereas Control Order, 2018 is passed exercising the power under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which is a special enactment and it overrides the general provisions and the police officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police are not empowered to search and seize the essential commodities. Hence, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Home is unsustainable under law. 14. Following the decision in the case of Sri Vigneswara Traders (1 supra) and the order passed in Writ Petition No.19041 of 2019 dated 27.11.2019, this Court is not persuaded to take any different stand to that of the above decisions. Hence, the seizure of stock and vehicle by the 5th respondent under Mahazarnama dated 01.04.2021 is declared as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and consequently the same is set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 27.05.2021 holds good and thereby the vacate petition i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 dated 27.05.2021 holds good and thereby the vacate petition i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.