Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Venkata Subbaiah And 5 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 10 July, 2025
APHC010308012011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 83/2011
Between:
1. P.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. B.BALA VENKAT, R/O. PEDDA
KOTTALA , KURNOOL DISTRICT.
2. Y.THIMMAIAH, S/O. Y.RAMA SUBBAIAH, R/O. GURUKALLU,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
3. N.N.LINGA REDDY, S/O. P.LINGA REDDY, R/O. MANDLAM
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
4. S.IKBAL, S/O. KASIM PEERA, R/O.NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
5. C.NAGARAJU, S/O. K.NARAYAN, R/O. THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
6. P.NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. P.PULLA REDDY, R/O.
KORATAMADDI VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT,.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. (Through District Collector (C.S.Kurnool
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
K V RAGHU VEER
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011
Dated 10.07.2025
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.,') challenging the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.107 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the order passed by the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, in RC.DSO/CS1/EC.No/68/2009 dated 13.07.2009, was confirmed. The learned Collector, Kurnool, passed the impugned order confiscated the seized stock to the Government.
2. The case of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, is that he along with the officials of the Vigilance and Enforcement has inspected the premises of Tirumala Rural Farmer Ware House Peddakottala Nandyal on 26.06.2009 inspected the premises of Tirumala Rural Farmer Ware House, Nandyal, and seized the stock of 15634.00 quintals of paddy as per the contravened provisions of Clause-2(K) and Clause-10(I) and 18(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities and Dealers (Licensing and Regulation and Supplies) Order, 2008 (for brevity 'the Control Order') read with G.O.Ms.No.49 Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies Department, dated 25.11.2008 and submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, (for short 'the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 E.C.Act.') to the learned Collector for issuing necessary proceedings. It was further contended by the Mandal Revenue Inspector that some of the benami traders of surrounding areas of Nandyal hoarded huge stocks of paddy at Ware House by purchasing the same from ryots. On verification of the premises, they noticed that bags of paddy containing 75 KGs each in the above mentioned quantity were hoarded in the Ware House.
3. The learned Collector issued orders under Section 6-A (2) of 'the E.C.Act.' for interim disposal of the seized stock in public interest to control raising prices as the seized stock is perishable in nature. It was mentioned in the impugned proceedings that an opportunity was given to the farmers to produce relevant documents before the enquiry officer by name Surender, Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool. Out of 70 depositors/farmers, 58 had participated in the enquiry on 04.07.2009 at the premises of godown and produced the records and other evidence such as pattadar pass books and title deeds etc., to prove that themselves as agriculturists of the hoarding stock. The learned Collector, based on the details compiled in accordance with the prescribed limit fixed @ 30 quintals per acre a quantity of 781.79 quintals as shown in Cloumn.No.14 had confiscated to the Government by releasing a quantity of 12639.26 quintals to the above mentioned 57 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 farmers/depositors, who attended the enquiry, as per the details shown in the annexure appended to the impugned order.
4. Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that neither an opportunity was given by the learned Collector before passing the impugned orders, nor followed the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' which mandates that under the report submitted by the respondent, the learned District Collector ought to have issued a notice calling for the objections from the respective farmers and ought to have framed charges and conducted an inquiry as contemplated under 'the E.C Act'. Therefore, non issuance of statutory notice is hit by the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that Sections 6-A and B of 'the E.C Act.,' mandate the learned District Collector to conduct an inquiry himself, and he cannot delegate that power to any subordinate authority. Even the subordinate authority had not given sufficient time to conduct an inquiry, and only one day time was given. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned District Collector which was confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge are hit by the principles of natural justice and they are liable to be interfered and set aside.
5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that notices were issued by the Tahsildar requiring 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 the farmers to submit their objections for the report contemplated under 6-A of 'the E.C Act.,' and thus sufficient opportunity was given to the farmers before confiscation order was passed. In the appeal, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, having carefully considered the case of the petitioners, confirmed the confiscation of the seized stock by the learned Collector. Therefore, that order is not required to be interfered with inasmuch as the principles of natural justice were complied with by the learned District Collector. It is further argued that even the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge also clearly depict that the procedure as contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' was followed. It is further argued that as per Section 6-B(3) of 'the E.C Act.,' even if there is any irregularity or any defect in the notice contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' order of confiscation of the Essential Commodity shall not get invalidated. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss all the revisions.
6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.107 of 2009 dated 24.08.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?"
8. For better appreciation and understanding of the case, it is apposite to extract Section 6-A of 'the E.C Act.,' as under:
"6-A. 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 food grains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized food grains 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 commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.7
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 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 food grains, 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 food grains 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"
9. A fair reading of Section 6-A of 'the E.C Act.,' it can be understood that upon of the receipt the information/report about the seizer of any Essential Commodity, it is incumbent on the part of the learned District Collector to direct the Essential Commodity be produced for inspection before him and if it is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 orders, he may order for confiscation of the commodities seized subject to the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act'.
10. For better understanding of the case, Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' is reproduced as follows:
"6-B. (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or the person from whom it is seized--
(a)is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance;
(b)is given an opportunity of making a presentation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and
(c)is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2)Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.
(3)No order confiscating any essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025
(l), if, in giving such notice, the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with."
11. A careful reading of Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' it is crystal clear that before passing any order for confiscation of the Essential Commodity, it is mandatory on the part of the learned District Collector to issue a show cause notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodity under Clause (a) of Section 6B of 'the E.C Act;' a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation shall be given under Clause (b); a reasonable opportunity of being heard within such reasonable time shall be given under Clause (c) of the notice as contemplated under Section 6-A of 'the E.C Act'. As seen from the impugned order, there were no such references about issuance of notices as contemplated under Section 6-B 'the E.C Act.,' containing the above mentioned requirements. The impugned order does reflect that the learned District Collector had conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act'. The impugned order does not contain the charges under which the petitioners/ryots had allegedly violated the control orders.
10
Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025
12. In this regard, it is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Panjab1 wherein it is categorically held at para No.13 that an order passed without issuing a show cause notice is revisable and to be interfered and set aside. Notice under Section 6-B(1) of 'the E.C Act.,' must contain all details and the grounds of proposed confiscation proceedings. Further, the High Court of Patna in Mahabir Prasad Bajaj v. State of Bihar2 held that vague notice vitiates entire proceedings and the provisions of Section 6-B(1) of 'the E.C Act.,' are mandatory. This judgment gives emphasis on the point that the notice must contain all material facts or allegations.
13. In Jhabarmal Mukin v. State of Bihar3, a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna held that the confiscation was invalid because the requirements of section 6-B of 'the E.C. Act.,' was not mentioned in the notice. It was further held that on plain reading, sub-section (3) is applicable to cases where there has been a substantial compliance. This shows that substantial compliance of the notice under section 6B of 'the E.C Act.,' is a must. The question of defect or irregularity will come subsequently. When the notice itself has not been substantially complied with as required under section 6B (a) of 'the E.C Act.,' there is no 1 2008 (7) SCC 38 2 1990 SCC OnLine Pat 174 3 1984, P.L.J.R. 568 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 question that any defect or irregularity can be ignored under sub-section (3) of section 6B of 'the E.C Act'.
14. In Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice and Oil Mills v. Collector West Champaran4, it is held that if a notice is issued without giving any details of violation of the Licensing Order, such type of notice shall not fulfill the requirements of section 6B of 'the E.C Act'. It was pointed out that the notice issued must set out in detail, the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodities.
15. This Court, in P. Venkata Konda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch, vide order dated 11.03.2025, in the above similar circumstances, allowed the Criminal Revision Cases by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Collector, on the ground that he did not comply with Section 6-B of 'the E.C. Act'.
16. In the instant case, as can be seen from the impugned order the learned District Collector had authorized a certain cadre of the officer i.e., Surender, Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool, to conduct inquiry by obtaining the information and submit report within only one day. Sections 6-A and 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' contemplate that the inquiry has to be conducted by the learned District Collector himself. The learned Collector cannot delegate the power of conducting the inquiry to his 4 1977 B.B.C.J. 151 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 subordinate authorities. The maximum „delegatus non potest delegare‟ has to be applied where a statute clearly and strictly directs the learned District Collector to conduct himself an inquiry as contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' he cannot further delegate his powers to any of his subordinates. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar5, at para No.16 held that the maxim 'Delegatus non potest delegare‟ is a well-known maxim which means in the absence of any power a delegatee cannot sub-delegate its power to another person. The impugned order do not reflect about issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' which is a repository of the principles of natural justice. Any order that is passed against the principles of natural justice is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
17. Though the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool in his judgment referred namesake that the learned District Collector strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' the record reveals that no such notices were issued to the farmers by the learned District Collector. Indeed, there was a reference that the Tahsildar on 04.07.2009 issued notices to the farmers, but those notices are not appropriate and adequate notices as contemplated under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.' 5 (2004) 3 SCC 723 13 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025
18. Of course, the order of the learned District Collector does not reflect that he had ordered approximately 10% of the seized stock to be confiscated by the Government, but the statement appended to the impugned proceedings disclosed that quantity to the confiscation to the government is 10% from out of the quantity seized from the farmers. The about 90% of the stock seized was directed to be given to the farmers. When the learned District Collector found that the petitioners were the genuine farmers who had produced the grains from their respective fields what was the reason that prompted the learned District Collector is unknown to impose 10% of the stock seized for confiscation to the government. There was no justification to order even 10% of the confiscation to the government since the statements recorded by the officers concerned from the farmers revealed that they produced commodities from their fields. To buttress, this they had also referred to the pattadar passbooks and other documents relating to their cultivation.
19. Be that as it may, the impugned order suffers from severe material irregularities which cannot be sustained. Therefore, the notice under Section 6-B of 'the E.C Act.,' which was the genesis for initiating the confiscation proceedings, when appears to have been not at all given, the confiscation proceedings themselves have become invalid for want of substantial compliance. Ergo, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool and consequently the 14 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 impugned order passed by the learned District Collector, Kurnool are liable to be interfered and set aside.
20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.107 of 2009 dated 24.08.2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, consequently the impugned order in RC.DSO/CS1/EC.No/68/2009, dated 13.07.2009 passed by the learned District Collector, Kurnool, is also set aside. It is needless to say that the authorities shall to pay the value of the 10% seized stock to the petitioners forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 10.07.2025 RSI 15 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 218 THE HON'BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.83 of 2011 Dated 10.07.2025 RSI