Lakshmi Traders vs. The Joint Collector

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.36588 of 2012 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent – Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in seizing lorry bearing No.AP09 V 6971 along with 170 quintals of raw rice (340 bags weighing 50 kgs each) on 05.11.2012 as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently, direct the respondents to release the same.

In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the first petitioner is a licence holder in food grains under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 and he is running business in the name and style of M/s.Lakshmi Traders. It is further stated that the petitioner is doing business by purchasing paddy from the agriculturists, milling the same and selling the resultant rice as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. It is also stated that when the first petitioner was transporting 170 quintals of raw rice in lorry bearing No.AP09 V 6971 vide Way Bill No.K6275367 on 05.11.2012, it was seized on suspicion that the said rice is meant for Public Distribution System.

It is the case of the petitioners that there is absolutely no basis for seizing the alleged stock. It is also the case of the petitioners that when the first petitioner is a trader holding valid licence and is transporting the said stock through vehicle bearing No.AP09 V 6971 covered by Way Bill bearing No.K6275367, the said stock was seized by making false allegations.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that allegation of the respondents that the stock seized is not a raw rice, is without any basis and seizure itself is illegal and arbitrary.

When the matter came up on 27.11.2012, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions whether any further steps were taken to verify whether the seized rice is supplied under the Public Distribution System or not. When the matter is called today, based on the written instructions, dated 30.11.2012 obtained in E.C. Act Case No.529/2012-S7, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that seizure was effected on suspicion that the stock is pertaining to Public Distribution System but not raw rice, which was permitted to be transported as per the Way Bill. It is further submitted that immediately after seizure,

samples submitted were sent to the Assistant Manager (Technical), Office of the District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Guntur, requesting to analyse the said samples and to report, and the District Manager has submitted analysis report vide letter bearing No.3(5)/2012/Seized stocks, dated 16.11.2012 confirming that the rice stock belongs to Grade-A variety. It is also submitted that basing on the recommendations made by the second respondent, the case has been taken on file under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and notice has also been issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

From a perusal of the panchanama, it is clear that having regard to the smell of the rice and size of the grain, it was assumed that the said rice is meant for Public Distribution System but not raw rice as permitted. It is also clear from the panchanama that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is that the rice being transported is meant for Public Distribution System. In the panchanama itself, it is stated that the said stock being transported is under valid Way Bill and the petitioner is a trader holding valid licence. In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that the report was sent by

the District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Guntur, confirming that the seized rice stock belongs to Grade–A variety but it is not meant for Public Distribution System, it can be said that there is no basis for seizure at all. In the absence of any other allegation and in view of aforesaid report of the District Manager, there is no basis for initiating proceedings under Section

6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is to be noted that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can be initiated only in the event of violation of any of the provisions of the Control Orders. In this case, when the stock was seized on suspicion and when it is found that the samples were of rice Grade-A variety and it is not meant for Public Distribution System, there is no basis for initiating proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that seizure of lorry bearing No.AP09 V 6971 along with 170 quintals of raw rice stored in 340 bags weighing 50 kgs each is illegal. There shall be a direction to the respondents to release the seized lorry and stock forthwith to the petitioners. Further, proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 6-A of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.46450 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

______________________

3 rd DECEMBER, 2012. Note: issue operative portion by 'wire' at party's costs.

kvni