Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Yellaiah vs Ex-Officio Secretary To Govt. Of A.P., ... on 23 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALD(CRI)289, 1996(3)ALT503, 1996 A I H C 4533, (1996) 2 LS 113, (1996) 3 ANDHLD 509, (1996) 3 ANDH LT 503
Author: M.H.S. Ansari
Bench: M.H.S. Ansari
JUDGMENT M.H.S. Ansari, J.
1. The Writ Petitioner/Appellant is a fair price shop dealer. On 27-1-1985, the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies inspected the house of the petitioner and found 103 bags of Rice in his possession. The petitioner was also found in possession of 150 kgs of Sugar which was said to be in contravention of Clause 3 of A.P. Prevention of Hoarding of Food-grains Order, 1973 and therefore the Tahsildar seized the said 103 bags of rice and 150 kgs of Sugar on the ground that the same were liable to be confiscated Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner preferred his objections and an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner submitted his written explanation before the Joint Collector, who by his orders dated 29-8-1985 ordered for confiscation and seized the said stock in favour of the Government Under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Aggrieved against the said orders, an appeal was filed by the Writ Petitioner-Appellant Under Section 6-C of the said Act before the Secretary to Government who upheld the order of confiscation passed by the Joint Collector. Aggrieved against the same, the Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed and aggrieved against the said orders passed by the learned single Judge, Writ Petitioner has filed the present Appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner-appellant raised manifold contentions before this Court. The first such contention was that the petitioner is having a food-grain licence No. 49/83 and therefore he was legally entitled to hold the aforesaid stocks. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the authorities Under Section 6-A and the Appellate authority Under Section 6-C have merely gone by the earlier statement made by the time of inspection and have not considered the subsequent inspection and report which was directed by the Joint Collector and which report specifically mentions that the said stocks of rice were meant for levy and bore stencilling marks. The other contentions raised, however, are not necessary for consideration in these proceedings, in the view that we propose to take in the matter. Learned single Judge in his Order considered the contention as regards the food-grain licence held by the petitioner and observed as under:
"The petitioner, however, has not produced the licence to satisfy the Court whether the quantity of rice detected during inspection was in conformity with the terms and conditions of licence issued to him"
and when the learned counsel for the appellant was confronted that any argument on the assumption that the petitioner - appellant is a licence, it will not be possible to proceed on the assumption that he is a licencee under the said Control Order who is wrongly charged for hoarding of the goods and violating the Control Order unless the licence is produced. Learned counsel for Appellant took time for producing the aforesaid licence. Instead of producing the said licence, an affidavit of the Writ Petitioner, Bongiri Yellaiah dated 8-4-1996 was filed and in that affidavit, it is inter alia stated as under:
"I was issued licence No. 49/83 in file No. CS-2/556/83, under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. The said licence was valid on the date of seizure. I submit that I was also running a fair price shop in the said premises under a valid authorisation issued under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973. However on account of constant harassment of Civil Supplies Officers I tendered my resignation in respect of Licence No. 49 /83 as well as fair price shop. It was sometime in 1986 or 1987."
and in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated as follows:
"I submit that the original licence bearing No. 49/83 was handed over by me in the year 1985 itself to the District Supply Officer who conducted inspection of Stocks on the directions of the Joint Collector,"
A Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondents by Dr. K.S. Jawahar Reddy, Joint Collector, Nalgonda. It is stated in paragraph 2 thereof as follows:
"The fact that the petitioner possessed Foodgrain licence in addition to authorisation of Fair price shop was not brought to the notice of the officials during inspection on 27-1-1985. Either the foodgrain licence or any one of the records relating to his foodgrain licence were found at the residence of the petitioner during inspection."
and in paragraph 7, it is stated as follows:
"it is submitted that during the inspection on 27-1-1985, the petitioner did not produce his Food-Grain Licence before the Inspecting Officials and it was not seized, subsequently the District Supply Officer inspected the seized commodity which were kept in the custody of Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mill, Deverkonda. There is nothing on record or in the Inspection Report that the petitioner handed over his original licence to the District Supply Officer during the said inspection. The original licence is not available in the records of these respondents. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the averments that the original licence was handed over to the District Supply Officer."
It is thus apparent that a factual dispute has arisen whether the Writ Petitioner - Respondent was having the food-grain licence No. 49/83 under A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Distribution) Order, 1982, while at the same time, he was also the authorised fair price shop dealer carrying on business at the same premises. A dispute has also arisen as to the sources of the 100 bags of rice procured by the Writ Petitioner-appellant which he claims were meant for delivery of levy. Under the provisions of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy Order), 1984, every licenced dealer shall maintain clear accounts relating to delivery of levy rice. Learned Government Pleader representing the Respondents, however, contended that there is no evidence produced by the Writ Petitioner-Respondent to substantiate his claim that the 100 bags of rice found at the residence of the petitioner were meant for levy as also the source of its procurement. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that as per the book balance of the fair price accounts maintained by the petitioner, the balance shows 6.20 Quintals of rice whereas on physical verification only 3 Quintals of rice was found which is in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System), Order, 1973.
3. A perusal of the orders of the authorities discloses that all the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioner-Appellant have not been duly considered and the Writ Petitioner-Appellant has not been afforded opportunity of placing relevant evidence to establish that the seized stocks were meant for levy and the relevant accounts in respect thereof could not be placed before the authorities for want of adequate opportunity to the Writ Petitioner-Appellant. The learned single Judge in his Judgment under Appeal has, as already noticed, noted mat the Writ Petitioner - appellant failed to produce the Food-Grain Licence No. 49/83 and therefore rejected the contention in this behalf by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and consider it appropriate that the matter should be remitted for de novo consideration, but not by the authority that has already considered the matter and therefore deem it proper that the same should be considered by the Collector, Nalgonda District and therefore, let a direction issue to the Collector, Nalgonda District for a fresh enquiry by him after giving an opportunity to the Writ Petitioner- Appellant to file his representation raising all such pleas and contentions as he may choose to do or as may be open to him in law and place all such evidence on which he seeks to rely and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date the Writ Petitioner- Appellant files that representation before the Collector, Nalgonda District. We grant three weeks time to the Writ Petitioner-Appellant to submit his representation and all such relevant evidence, documentary or otherwise as he may be advised.
4. Pending disposal of the enquiry by the Collector, Nalgonda District, there shall, however, be a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the orders dated 19-10-1995 in W.P. No. 6948 of 1988 and the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 739, Food and Agriculture (CS-IV), dated 19-12-1987.
5. It is further directed that the enquiry which we had directed the Collector, Nalgonda District to hold in this behalf shall be one deemed to be Under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. This Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the directions as above.