Telangana High Court
Aitha Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana on 20 April, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.10944 & 10995 OF 2026
DATE OF ORDER : 20.04.2026
W.P.No.10944 of 2026
Between:
Aitha Srikanth, S/o. Aitha Krishna
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Flat No.102, Vasavi Rajamani Meadows,
Haripuri Colony, Road No.1, Saroornagar,
Ranga Reddy District - 500 102.
.. Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department,
secretariat, Hyderabad and three others
.. Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Writ petition No.10944 of 2026 is filed with the following prayer:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and continuing to retain the Petitioner's stock of rice admeasuring 187 quintals along with the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TY-1688, pursuant to the Panchanama dated 23.12.2025 in FIR No.275 of 2025 on the file of Palakurthy Police Station, Jangaon District, as illegal, arbitrary, without
2 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the said rice stock and the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and pass such other order or orders..."
Writ petition No.10995 of 2026 is filed with the following prayer:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and continuing to retain the Petitioner's stock of rice admeasuring 187 quintals along with the lorry bearing No.AP-28-TA-7432, under Panchanama dated 23.12.2025 in connection with FIR No.274 of 2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the seized rice stock and the vehicle in favour of the Petitioner, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and pass such other order or orders..."
2. Heard Mr. K.Vishnu Kanth, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions.
3. The subject matter in both the writ petitions being similar in nature, they are being heard together.
3 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 Facts in WP No. 10944 of 2026:
4. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 187 quintals of commercial rice, seized by respondent No.4 under the cover of panchanama dated 23.12.2025, FIR No. 275 of 2025 is registered for offences under Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 & 8 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (FIR is Ex.P1, page No.12 of writ papers). Complaint (page No.16 of writ papers), is that a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 16 TY 1688 was intercepted by the police of Palakurthy, near valmidi cross roads carrying rice, intended for distribution to eligible beneficiaries through public distribution system, fraudulently and illegally procured from functionaries. 370 plastic bags (50 kgs each) of rice were being transported in the vehicle (Lorry) from Madhira mandal (Khammam District) to Nanded, Maharashtra. Complainant is the Deputy Tahsildar, he conducted panchanama in presence of witnesses, seized the vehicle and rice. Complainant requested the Deputy Marketing and Logistics officer to verify the nature of rice by collecting samples, rice 4 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 inspected was specified variety designated for PDS. Complainant seized rice (worth Rs.8,41,500/-) along with vehicle and requested the station house officer to take necessary action as per law.
Facts in W.P.No.10995 of 2026:
5. Petitioner claims to be the owner of 187 quintals of commercial rice, seized by respondent No.4 under the cover of panchanama dated 23.12.2025, FIR No.274 of 2025 is registered for offences under Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 & 8 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (FIR is Ex.P1, page No.12 of writ papers). Complaint (page No.16 of writ papers), is that a vehicle bearing registration No. AP 28 TA 7432 was intercepted by the police of Palakurthy, near valmidi cross roads carrying rice, intended for distribution to eligible beneficiaries through public distribution system, fraudulently and illegally procured from functionaries. 370 plastic bags (50 kgs each) of rice were being transported in the vehicle (Lorry) from Madhira mandal (Khammam District) to Nanded, Maharashtra. Complainant is the 5 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 Deputy Tahsildar, he conducted panchanama in presence of witnesses, seized the vehicle and rice. Complainant requested the Deputy Marketing and Logistics officer to verify the nature of rice by collecting samples, rice inspected was specified variety designated for PDS. Complainant seized rice (worth Rs.8,41,500/-) along with vehicle and requested the station house officer to take necessary action as per law.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that rice seized is not PDS rice. It is further submitted that seizure is based on suspicion, without scientific verification or laboratory analysis to establish that rice is PDS rice. That no quality test, grain sample report nor conclusive material is obtained to support the allegation. It is also submitted that retention of the rice stock is arbitrary.
7. It is submitted that confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') have not been initiated nor the stock seized is produced before the Court. It is further submitted that rice being a perishable commodity and if stored 6 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 improperly would cause irreparable economic loss. It is also submitted that physical custody of rice stock is not necessary, does not serve any evidentiary purpose and retention is unjustified. It is pointed out that petitioner is ready and willing to furnish reasonable security or bond, if required, to secure the production or value of the stock.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that PDS rice meant for public distribution was being illegally transported from Madhira Mandal, Khammam, to Nanded, Maharashtra, by lorry. That Police intercepted and found the rice being transported and drivers had confessed that owners, Aitha Krishna and Aitha Srikanth of Dharmapuri Colony, Saroornagar, had instructed them to transport the rice to the destination. It is further submitted that officially it was certified that rice was specified variety designated for PDS. That a panchanama was conducted and the complainant i.e., Deputy Tahsildar, seized rice bags along with lorry. It is lastly submitted that petitioners in both the writ petitions 7 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 are guilty of offences registered in the FIR and proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, are underway, hence, no interference is necessitated.
9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.
10. Petitioners in both the writ petitions claim themselves to be owners of 187 quintals of commercial rice. The said rice was seized by respondent No.4 on 23.12.2025. On the basis of a complaint by the Deputy Tahsildar, FIRs came to be lodged bearing Nos.275 and 274 of 2025 for offences under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, 1955, in P.S. Palakurthty.
11. From the material on record, it is observed that drivers of both the lorries had confessed that upon instructions of petitioners, rice was being transported from Madhira to Nanded. Lorries were intercepted by the Police at Valmidi Cross Roads, Palakurthty. Rice meant for distribution to eligible beneficiaries through the Public Distribution System was fraudulently and illegally 8 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 procured and was being transported. Samples of rice were collected and forwarded to Deputy Marketing and Logistics Officer, to verify the nature of rice. Officially it was certified that rice was of the specified variety designated for PDS and was within the parameters prescribed by Government of India. A panchanama was conducted and the complainant i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, seized the rice bags with lorries. Petitioners relied upon the bills of supply dated 22.12.2025 in both the writ petitions (Ex.P2-Page Nos.20 & 19 of writ papers), to support their claim. The vehicle numbers on the bills of supply are AP 16 TY 1688 and AP 28 TA 7432.
12. In W.P.No.10944 of 2026, the Bill to party is Laxmi Poultry Farms, Degloor, Nanded, and ship to party is Laxmi Poultry Farms, Degloor, Nanded. The bill of supply is issued by Srikanth Traders, Saroornagar, and the authorized signatory is A.Srikanth.
13. In W.P.No.10995 of 2026, the Bill to party is Nandi Poultry Farms, Khanapur, near Degloor, Nanded, and ship to party is Nandi Poultry Farms, Khanapur, near Degloor, 9 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 Nanded. The bill of supply is issued by Sri Srinivasa Manikanta Traders, Saroornagar, and the authorized signatory is A.Krishna.
14. On the basis of these two supply bills, contention is put forth that the rice is commercial rice, but not PDS rice. Section 6A of the Act, 1955, is as follows:
"6A. Confiscation of essential commodity.― Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of―
(a) the essential commodity so seized;
(b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and
(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:
Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section:
Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential 10 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.
Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may―
(i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction:
Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public.
(3) where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall―
(a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector,
(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub- section (1) of section 6C so requires, or
(c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted, be paid to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized."
15. On a perusal of Section 6A of the Act, 1955, it is apparent that confiscation of essential commodities can be done for violation of control orders. The commodities can 11 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 be seized for violation of restrictions imposed i.e., storage, sale or movement.
16. It is apparent from the material on record that PDS rice which was meant for eligible beneficiaries was being transported from Madhira to Nanded. Vehicles were intercepted, 187 quintals of rice was seized along with vehicles and the rice was put to test. It was found that rice was of the designated variety meant for PDS. Panchanama was conducted.
17. It is averred that confiscation proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, have not been initiated. Be that as it may, the rice and the vehicle are seized. It may take some time for conclusion of proceedings under 6A of the Act, 1955, if already initiated.
18. Rice a commodity which is likely to get damaged, cannot be held for long. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that relief be granted for interim custody of the rice seized by the authorities. The respondents are directed to release the stock of rice 12 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026 seized, subject to the condition that petitioners furnish immovable property as security in the State of Telangana equal to the value of the stock of rice seized to respondent authorities. Release of rice shall be subject to outcome of the confiscation proceedings, if initiated under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, against petitioners.
19. With regard to the release of vehicles, respondents are directed to release the lorries bearing registration Nos. AP 16 TY 1688 and AP 28 TA 7432, subject to petitioners furnishing bank guarantee's by way of fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) in favour of respondent authorities, with an undertaking that they will not alienate the subject vehicle or alter its nature or create any encumbrance on it. The release of the vehicle shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, 1955. The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the authorities by appearing on the date of hearing of proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, 1955, and for early conclusion of the said proceedings, if already commenced.
13 JAK, J WPs_10944 & 10995_2026
20. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 20.04.2026 KRR