Telangana High Court
S A Q Exports vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 39519 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" .... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the seizure of the stock of rice of 350 Quintals of the petitioner No.1 and the vehicle Goods Carrier of Ashok Leyland No. TS 07 UG 3559 of the petitioner No.2, through panchanama dated 18.10.2022 by registering a 6-A case under Essential Commodities Act and under Section 420 of the IPC, and not releasing the said stock of rice and vehicle, in favour of the petitioners, even though the petitioners have not committed any irregularities or illegalities, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the same may be set aside. Consequently, direct the respondents to release the stock of rice of 350 quintals of rice in favour of the petitioner No.1 and the vehicle Goods Carrier of Ashok Leyland No. TSW 07 UG 3559 in favour of the petitioner No.2 seized through panchanama, dated 18.10.2022 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a petty businessman and deals with purchase, selling and milling of paddy and rice in wholesale and retail and petitioner No.2 is owner of the vehicle goods carrier of Ashok Layland Limited bearing No. TS 07 UG 3559 of 2019 model. He submits that on 18.10.2022, 2 the 3rd respondent seized rice of 350 quintals in 70 bags each bag containing 50 kgs. and the vehicle goods carrier without even considering that the said rice is being transported through a proper bill and waybill from Bodhan to Kakinada and the said rice does not belong to public distribution system. He submits that thereafter, by conducting a panchanama, a case was registered i.e. Crime No. 168 of 2022 under Section 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). He further submits that the rice which is seized is common variety rice and it is available in open market. According to the learned counsel, only with an intention to implicate the petitioner stating that the said rice belongs to public distribution system, the respondents have seized the vehicle as well as stock by registering the crime. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and even as per the Telangana Public Distribution Control Order, 2016, rice is a schedule commodity and not an essential commodity, as such seizing of vehicle ad rice under Section 6-A of the Act and further registering a crime under Section 420 IPC. is nothing but illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He submits that there is no complaint that the petitioners have purchased the said rice from any of the 3 cardholders or from any fair price shop as supplied to them under any of such public distribution system. He submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the seizure of stock and registering a complaint. Further, a consequential direction is sought to release the stock as well as vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in Writ Petition No. 22611 of 2021 vide order dated 17.09.2021, taking into consideration the fact that enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act and investigation / prosecution into the crime registered against the petitioners may take considerable time and if the vehicle is kept in open yard or exposed to Sun and other weather conditions and kept idle, road-worthiness of the vehicle may be severely affected, to balance the interests of both the parties, issued certain directions.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on written instructions, submits that police have seized the lorry along with rice under the cover of panchanama on 18.10.2022 and sent rice samples to the District Manager, TS Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bhadradri-Kothagudem requesting to verify / analyze the rice sample and to report whether the rice is of PDS or raw rice. It is submitted that a report was submitted stating that sample referred to is 4 suspected to be recycled and also akin to PDS rice. Basing on the said report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Paloncha Rural Police Station has registered a case in Crime No. 168 of 2022 dated 19.10.2022 under Section 420 IPC. and Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the sub-Inspector of Police has given requisition to the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Paloncha on 19.10.2022 to handover PDS rice along with lorry and take further action in the matter. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that after enquiry, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) came to the conclusion that the matter relates to illegal purchase and transportation of PDS rice and he has strong reason to believe that the entire incident from starting to ending is contravention of Clause 17(A) and 17(e) of the TS PDS (Control) Order, 2016, as such, the Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Paloncha has taken the entire seized rice stock along with lorry in the presence of panchas and filed a case under Section 6-A of the Act i.e. M.C.No. 158 of 2022 in the court of the Additional Collector & Additional District Manager, Bhadradri Kothagudem and the said case is under process. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that before 6-A proceedings are initiated, an Application can be filed under Section 457 of the 5 Act and after initiation of 6-A proceedings, the Collector can grant interim custody of the vehicle.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the police have deposited 350 quintals of PDS rice before the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer for safe custody. It is submitted that the respondent police are not competent to release the stock as well as the vehicle unless a competent Court orders the respondent police to do so.
5. In the light of the arguments advance on behalf of either side, the issue falls for consideration before this Court is whether the District Collector or the competent Court has got jurisdiction for release of interim custody of the seized vehicle / stocks.
6. It is appropriate to have a look at Section 6-E of the Act which reads as under:
" 6-E. Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases:-
Whenever any essential commodity is seized in
pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, or any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, or any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity is seized pending confiscation under Section 6-A, the Collector, or, as the case may be the State Government concerned under Section 6- C shall have, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall not have, jurisdiction to 6 make orders with regard to the possession, delivery, disposal, release or distribution of such essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance."
7. As per Section 6-E of the Act, there is a bar on Courts, Tribunals or other Authority in passing orders in relation to essential commodities or the vehicle which were seized pending confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Once 6-A proceedings are initiated by the competent authority, then, for passing any order either for interim custody of stock or the vehicle, the competent authority is the Collector. When such proceedings are not initiated under Section 6-A of the Act, then the competent criminal Court has got jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Act. In such an event, bar under Section 6-E of the Act is not attracted.
8. Several Writ Petitions are filed before this Court seeking interim custody of the vehicle. According to this Court, prior to initiation of 6-A proceedings, there is a remedy before the competent criminal Court and there is a remedy before the Collector after 6-A proceedings are initiated. Respondents 1 and 2 are bound to consider the Application of the parties in an appropriate manner. Whenever a vehicle is seized and immediately if 6-A proceedings are not initiated by the 7 competent authority, the respondent police shall deposit the vehicle before the Court and on such deposit, an appropriate Application can be moved by the applicant before the competent Court. When once 6-A proceedings are initiated, it is for the District Collector to pass orders. Whenever an Application is filed seeking custody of the vehicle, the respondent, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one week from the date of filing such an Application, shall decide the same. Further, this Court has already issued certain guidelines in Writ Petition No. 22611 of 2021 while deciding the Application for interim custody, which read as under:
" (a) The petitioners shall furnish fixed deposit receipt a proof of opening of fixed deposit account for 50% of the amount of the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector / or bank guarantee for the equal sum;
(b) Petitioners shall furnish an undertaking in writing that they will not alienate or change the physical features of the vehicle and shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the competent authority;
(c) If petitioners do not produce the vehicle as required by the competent authority or vehicle is not traceable after the confiscation orders are passed, it is open to the competent authority to request the police and / or the Transport Department authorities to seize and handover possession of the vehicle to the competent authority;
(d) Petitioners shall furnish the copies of R.C. Book of the vehicle and driving licence of the driver;
(e) The 2nd respondent / the Collector, Siddipet District, shall write to the RTA authorities not to entertain any application to transfer the vehicle in question on any third party's name without clearance from the Civil Supplies Department;
(f) The release of the vehicle shall be subject to the orders that may be passed in the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act, 1955 / prosecution of Crime No. 99 of 2021."8
9. In this case, 6-A proceedings are already initiated and the petitioner can file an Application before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector shall decide the said Application within one week from the date of filing of such an Application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs.
10. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 03rd November 2022 ksld 9 10