Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narla Aruna Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 July, 2022
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION NO.22387 of 2022
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and perused the material available on record.
2) With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1212.2020 the 3rd respondent along with Civil Supplies authorities conducted a surprise check at petitioner's house and seized 98 quintals of rice stored in plastic bags. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for release of the stock, for which he said that he is not the competent authority to release the seized stock. While so, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent on 02.01.2021 to dispose of the seized stock through public auction contrary to the provision of Section 6-A(2) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner was issued notice dated 17.07.2021 to attend before the 2nd respondent on 24.07.2021. The petitioner appeared and submitted her objections. The petitioner also submitted representation on 2 24.07.2021 to the 2nd respondent for release of the stock. The seized stock was not put to public auction pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.01.2021.
4) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21057 of 2021 seeking to release the seized rice. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 29.09.2021, giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh comprehensive detailed application for release of the seized stock before the 2nd respondent, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court further directed that on submission of such application, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for release of the seized stock, as per law, within a period of seven days thereafter and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 29.09.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 15.11.2021. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a notice directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.2,45,000/- to release the seized stock. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3
6) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rice was not at all PDS rice and it was neither acquired from the ration cardholders nor any fair-price shop. The rice was purchased from the farmers as paddy and later he processed the same from the nearest rice mill in Edlapadu.
7) The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contends that the petitioner is purchasing PDS rice from surrounding villages at cheaper rate and sells at higher rate. Learned Government Pleader further contends that on receipt of credible information, the inspecting authorities conducted search and seized the rice and initiated proceedings.
8) The legality and validity of the seizure to be decided by the competent authority (i.e.) 2nd respondent herein under Section 6-A proceedings. Hence, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case.
9) Having heard the respective counsel, upon perusal of the material available on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the latest order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Onteru Bhaskar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal 4 Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others1 in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the Respondents to release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on imposing certain conditions.
10) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The notice of the 2nd respondent in E.C. Act Case No.347 of 2020-S1, dated 23.11.2021 is hereby suspended.
(ii) The Respondents shall release the rice seized pursuant to the search conducted on 12.12.2020, in favour of the petitioner on condition of furnishing immovable property security equivalent to the value of the seized rice, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.26.07.2022.
Note: Issue CC tomorrow.
B/o PGR 1 2022 SCC OnLine AP 348 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.No.22387 of 2022 Dt.26.07.2022 PGR