Allowed

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2020WA/133/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal challenging the seizure of the appellant's godown. Finding no power under Section 14 of the Seeds Act, 1966 to seize an entire warehouse, the Court set aside the single judge's order and restored the writ petition for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.07.2019 is set aside. Writ petition No.7648 of 2019 is restored. The locked godown is to be opened by the concerned Inspector.

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶2

CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

¶3

¶4

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.133 of 2020

¶6

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶7

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, (Registered partnership firm) Rep., by its Partner, P. Siva Rama Prasad, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 58 years, Shed No.F12, Industrial Estate, Kallur village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

.. Appellant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Special Chief Secretary, Department of Agriculture, A.P., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and (5) others.

¶11

..Respondents.

¶12

Counsel for Appellant : Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy. Counsel for respondents : Additional Advocate General on behalf of G.P. for Agriculture

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

Dt: 01.09.2020

¶15

per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ

¶16

This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.7648 of 2019.

¶17

The appellant-writ petitioner being aggrieved by the seizure

¶18

of his godown, filed the above writ petition inter alia stating that

¶19

¶20

HCJ & KSR, J W.A.No.133 of 2020

¶21

he was granted a centralized seeds licence on 18.07.2008, which was renewed in the year 2017 and 2020, and he has been running the business of cotton crop seed variety viz., Sharada-222 and Srilaxmi-333, and Maize crop seed variety namely Akila-222 and Ambika-333, and that the action of the respondents in seizing the godown is malice in law. The said writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the same, this appeal has been preferred.

¶22

It is the sole contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order observing that “non-stating of sufficient reasons in the order issued in Form-IV as per Rule 27 of the Seed Rules could not cause any prejudice to the writ petitioner and warrant inference by the Court “, is not sustainable.

¶23

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

¶24

During the course of hearing, on being asked by the Court regarding power of seizure, both the Counsel referred to Section 14 of the Seeds Act, 1966, under which, the Seed Inspector is conferred with the power to take samples of any seed of any notified kind or variety from the godown. The said sample may be sent for analysis. He may enter and search at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed, in such contingency, he may direct not to dispose of any stock of such seed for a specific

¶25

¶26

HCJ & KSR, J W.A.No.133 of 2020

¶27

period not exceeding thirty days. The Seed Inspector is also conferred with the power that if any godown is locked, he may break open the door of it.

¶28

As per the above provision, there is no power regarding seizure of the entire godown. The reference of Form No.IV as per Rule 27 of the Seed Rules, made in the impugned order is misplaced. Rule 27 of the Seed Rules specifies that the order to be given in writing by the Seed Inspector under Clause (c ) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 shall be in Form III.

¶29

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the seizure of the subject godown prima facie does not appear to be justifiable, and dismissal of the writ petition by learned single Judge is not on due consideration of the provisions of the law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶30

Accordingly, the order dated 12.07.2019 in W.P.No.7648 of 2019 is set aside. We direct to restore W.P.No.7648 of 2019, with an observation that the writ petition be decided in accordance with law. P rima facie we are of the opinion that the seizure of subject godown is not in accordance with law, therefore, it is directed that subject to result in the writ petition, the subject godown, which was locked, shall be opened by the concerned Inspector.

¶31

¶32

HCJ & KSR, J W.A.No.133 of 2020

¶33

With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶34

J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ K. SURESH REDDY, J

¶35

¶36

¶37

HCJ & KSR, J W.A.No.133 of 2020

¶38

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶39

CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

¶40

¶41

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶42

WRIT APPEAL No.133 of 2020

¶43

(per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ)

¶44

Dt: 01.09.2020

¶45

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruthala Gangu Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The District Collector, Vs Singam Maheswar Reddy

The District Collector, Vs Vaddemanu Eswara Reddy

Tadangi Rama Rao, Vs Ganta Appanna

Kattamreddy Ananth Rupesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R Vijaya Bhaskar Vs P Ranjit Basha