Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sheela Srinivas vs District Collector And Anr. on 31 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)ALD585, 2002(6)ALT700
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is a Rice Miller. He challenges the seizure of various quantities of paddy and rice effected by the 2nd respondent through Panchanama dated 10-10-2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, who has effected the seizure, has no jurisdiction and there was gross misuse of power on his part in effecting the seizure, which resulted in dislocation of the functioning of the mill and the business.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 24-10-2002, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has taken time to obtain instructions and to produce the records. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has argued the matter on the basis of the instructions and placed the relevant record before this Court.
3. Through the Panchanama dated 10-10-2002, the 2nd respondent has effected seizure of 549 bags of paddy weighing 384.30 quintals and 440.70 quintals of rice. The petitioner alleges that in view of the notification issued by the Government of India on 15-2-2002 and the Memo dated 27-3-2002, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, there are no restrictions as to stock or movement of the paddy and rice and, as such, the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction on the face of it. The basis on which the seizure was effected, is that certain quantity of rice, which was released at the Mandal Level Stocking Point, meant for Food for Work, was alleged to have been diverted to the Mill of the petitioner and, in that view of the matter, in exercise of power under A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 (for short 'the Control Order'), the seizure was effected. The learned Government Pleader tries to sustain the seizure on the basis of the provisions of the said Control Order.
4. It is not in dispute that with the issuance of notification dated 15-2-2002 by the Central Government and the corresponding Memo dated 27-3-2002 by the State Government; there are no restrictions as to stocking and movement of the paddy and rice in the State. It was in this context that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies issued proceedings dated 12-8-2002 stating that even where any Rice Miller is found to have indulged purchasing rice meant for Food for Work, the only course open is to initiate proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The Control Order deals exclusively with the issuance of authorisation and regulation of the activities in the fair price shops. The definition of 'Schedule Commodity' under Clause 2(16) reads as under:
"Schedule Commodity" means any commodity specified in the schedule to this Order, which is supplied by the State Government to any authorised fair price shop or establishment for issue to the consumers."
It is true that in the schedule to the Control Order, rice and paddy are included. However, it is only such quantity of rice and paddy 'which is supplied by the State Government to any authorised fair price shop or establishment for issue to the consumers' that can be dealt with under the Control Order. The power of seizure conferred under Clause 16 is only as regards stocks held by establishments or shops. For establishments, to come within the fold of the power of seizure under Clause 16, it needs to be declared specifically by the State Government or the Collector, for the purpose of this Order under Clause 2(11). Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the rice mills were declared as establishments. Even if it is presumed that such a declaration is made, the same runs contrary to the notification issued by the Government of India.
6. At any rate, it is not the case of the respondents that the paddy and rice were supplied by the Government to the petitioner for distribution to the public. There was absolutely no jurisdiction or justification for the respondents in seizing that stock.
7. The basis on which the seizure was effected was that about 305 quintals of rice meant for Food for Work was diverted to the Mill of the petitioner. This Court is rather compelled to observe that an important and vital programme, such as, Food for Work, is being implemented in such a callous and indifferent manner and there hardly exists any set of Statutory Rules to deal with such a huge quantity of rice. Statutes and Statutory Rules are made year after year for even inconsequential things, whereas no such Rules are forthcoming to deal with the rice whose value is running to thousands of crores. The result is that the officials as well as the traders are using the loosely knitted administrative instructions to suit the convenience. Hardly any days passes without complaints of gross misuse of and diversion of rice meant for Food for Work. The so-called administrative norms covering the field, which themselves are not available for verification, appear to be so elastic that they can be stretched or shrunk to meet the situation. While enthusiastic officers, irrespective of the department to which they belong and the position, which they hold, effect seizure of the rice and vehicles, and arrest the persons on mere suspicion, thousands of quantity passes right under the noses of other officials. The situation reached almost a climax when the rice, which is released from the godowns of Food Corporation of India (FCI) for Food for Work, is seized right in those godowns after a cyclic process. In the absence of any statutory and consistent Rules, the Courts are compelled to direct release of the same. The Courts are compelled to gather an impression that the seizures are made only for statistical purposes and for public consumption and to show a semblance of effort to curb the menace. The fact, however, remains that there does not appear to be a firm resolve to remedy the situation. That, however, is a matter for the Legislature and the Government to ponder over. As long as there are no Statutory Rules or definite administrative instructions covering the field, any activity on the part of the officials interfering with the business activity of the private individuals is bound to be set at naught by the Courts.
8. Even assuming that the petitioner has purchased or has come into possession of rice meant for Food for Work, the only action to be taken in this regard is to initiate proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code. The clarification issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, through the recent proceedings dated 12-8-2002 is as under:
"With reference to letter cited, it is clarified that Rice Millers who indulge in purchase of rice like Food for Work rice, action has to be taken under Criminal Procedure Code as there is no licensing system.
Insofar as the Fair Price Shop dealers are concerned, they are governed by the conditions of the authorisation issued under the Andhra Pradesh State PDS Control Order, 2001."
Admittedly, the petitioner is not a fair price shop dealer. Therefore, the seizure effected cannot be sustained.
9. The official, who has effected the seizure, has acted in gross misuse of his official capacity. On account of his unlawful seizure, the petitioner was subjected to severe hardship and financial loss. In the normal course, this Court would have thought of imposing penalty against the officer who seized it. The learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the seizure was effected on account of improper understanding of the relevant provisions. Accepting the submission, the 2nd respondent, who has effected the seizure, is directed to restore the entire quantity of rice and paddy to the petitioner forthwith. He is warned that recurrence of such instance would prove costly for him.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.