Telangana High Court
M/S. Venkateswara Fertilizers And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 14 December, 2020
Author: A.Rajasheker Reddy
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Writ Petition No.22727 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Case No.CS2/42/2020, dated 28.11.2020 wherein and whereby the stocks seized from the petitioner is confiscated to the extent of 25% of the seized stocks while exercising the power under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who initially submits that the order of confiscation is without notice.
A perusal of the material papers filed along with writ petition goes to show a copy of the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 6-B of the Act and when the same is pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 6-B (1)(c ) of the Essential Commodities Act.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture submits that the impugned order itself shows that the show-cause notice dated 16.10.2020 was issued and after hearing both sides, order of confiscation was passed.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner while giving up the said argument, submitted that to the extent of variations only the stocks can be confiscated, but not 25% of the confiscated stock, which goes to show that the petitioner wants to challenge the order of confiscation on merits.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture rightly pointed out that the petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternate remedy under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in A.Siva Reddy v. District Collector, Kurnool1 submits that notice should be issued before sale of the stocks, but the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the present case, the authorities want to dispose of the stock, after the order of confiscation is passed and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can avail the alternate remedy under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act and obtain appropriate interim order, instead of filing the present writ petition. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and same is not well founded.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Dated:14-12-2020 kvs 1 2008 (6) ALT 145 (D.B) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WP No.22727 of 2020 Date: 14-12-2020 kvs