Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Mathangi Matha Agros Private ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 October, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No. W.P.No.28564 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE 1. 16.10.2025 VS, J
The 2nd petitioner herein is the Managing Director of petitioner No.1's company and he entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent to supply rice as per the Custom Milling Rice (for short 'CMR').
During the course of the said business, the inspecting officials having found certain discrepancies, seized the stock containing 2133 kgs of PDS rice placed by the henchmen of respondent No.9 and 29320 kgs of CMR rice including the vehicle valued at Rs.24,46,838/-. The Tahsildar (CS) lodged a report as against the petitioner and seven others under Section 318(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS read with Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, in which, the Sub- Inspector of Police has filed charge sheet before the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kovvuru stating that the allegations as against the accused are not established.
2On 24.02.2025, the 2nd respondent, in pursuant to issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 passed final orders observing that the seized rice is not PDS rice and it is CMR rice, imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- for keeping the lorry without permission at other mill's premises and directed the 7th respondent to release the 293.20 quintals of seized CMR rice with immediate effect.
While things stood thus, respondent No.6 issued a Circular bearing RF.C.S.No.4/2025 dated 29.03.2025 informing about the paddy procurement operations for the Rabi Marketing Season 2024-2025. Having come to know that the petitioner's name would not be reflected in the said Rythu Seva Kendras (RSK) for supplying the paddy for CMR purpose, the 1st petitioner submitted a representation on 01.04.2025 to the 2nd respondent requesting them to supply paddy for the CMR purposes and unable it to continue its milling operations. As no further course of action has been initiated by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.9446 of 2025 seeking action against the respondents for not supplying rice for CMR purposes.
During the course of arguments in the above referred writ petition, the counsel for the 3 5th respondent have stated before the Court that the representation made by the petitioner on 01.04.2025 was rejected vide order bearing Ref.CS1/17/RJY/20254, dated 17.04.2025. The said proceedings discloses that the petitioner has already been blacklisted even though the proceedings under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act are pending. The rejection orders also refers to Para No.21 of G.O.Ms.No.11 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 24.09.2024.
Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file an amendment petition seeking amendment of prayer challenging the rejection orders dated 17.04.2025 vide I.A.No. 3 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court on 22.04.2025. This Court was pleased to pass interim order dated 25.04.2025 suspending the rejection order dated 17.04.2025 and further directed the respondent authorities to supply the paddy to the petitioner for CMR purpose. As the said orders were not complied by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Case No.1336 of 2025.
Subsequently, on 30.04.2025 the 2nd respondent passed final orders under Section 6A proceedings ordering confiscating the 100% value of PDS rice even without considering the fact that this Court has already suspended the 4 orders dated 17.04.2025. After receiving the contempt notices in Contempt Case No.1336 of 2025, the respondents have complied with the orders passed by this Court by issuing a supply order dated 09.05.2025 permitting the petitioners to participate in the CMR for the season 2024-2025. Accordingly, the said contempt case was closed on 11.07.2025.
The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.13234 of 2025 challenging the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 30.04.2025 under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act as it was in gross violation of interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9446 of 2025. Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in W.P.No.9446 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025, the 9th respondent preferred W.A.Nos.575 and 576 of 2025 on 03.05.2025 along with a leave petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking leave of the Court, but, however, the said leave application was dismissed on 24.06.2025.
During pendency of the said appeals, another application bearing CP/7/241/AMR/2025 was preferred by the 9th respondent under Section 241 of Companies Act, inter alia questioning his removal as a Director. However, the same was also dismissed on 08.05.2025.
5Challenging which, the 9th respondent also preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and the same has been recently numbered.
On the other hand, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram vide C.A.No.224 of 2025 under the provisions of Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 challenging the final orders passed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act dated 30.04.2025.
During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner also preferred an application bearing Crl.M.P.No.568 of 2025 seeking the Court to suspend the final order and to direct the respondent authorities to supply paddy for Custom Milling. The learned Session Court after hearing the parties, passed an order on 17.09.2025 directing the 2nd respondent herein to supply paddy for custom milling by suspending final order dated 30.04.2025.
Challenging which, the 9th respondent preferred Crl.P.No.10401 of 2025 before this Court seeking quashment of the order dated 17.09.2025. At the time of admission, this Court was pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Sessions 6 Judge on the ground that the Hon'ble Sessions Court might have exceeded its jurisdiction.
On 09.10.2025, once again the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent authorities requesting them to supply paddy for custom milling purpose. As no orders have been passed on the said application as on date, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.
Heard Mr.S.Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Venkat Challa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Mr.Nagendar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9.
Duly considering the arguments put forth by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel, this Court is satisfied to the extent that the final orders passed under Section 6-A dated 30.04.2025 were suspended by the learned Sessions Judge vide orders dated 17.09.2025 directing the 2nd respondent to supply paddy for custom milling. However, in a criminal petition No.10401 of 2025 filed by the 9th respondent seeking quashment of the said order 17.09.2025, the Court considering the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction (to the extent of directing the 2nd respondent to supply paddy for custom milling) 7 was pleased to suspend the orders dated 17.09.2025. However it is an admitted fact that the learned Sessions Judge is empowered under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act to suspend the final orders passed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
Considering the above scenario of facts, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities to supply regular quantity of paddy to its capacity for Custom Milling purpose by considering the representation made by the petitioners on 09.10.2025.
At request of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, for filing counter, post the matter after four (4) weeks along with W.P.No.9446 of 2025.
_____ VS, J KGR