Allowed

Kamana Ayyanna Babu at Bujji, v. State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jul 2020WP/11998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging an order of the District Collector. The Collector addressed only the release of a seized vehicle but remained silent on the petitioner's request for the release of seized stock. This Court directed the Collector to pass specific orders on the release of the stock within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector to pass orders on the release of the seized stock within 10 days.

Kamana Ayyanna Babu at Bujji, Vs State of A.P. — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.11998 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents.

¶4

Pending the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) before respondent No.2-District Collector, the petitioner herein filed an application dated 10.01.2020 seeking release of lorry bearing No.AP07TF 8299 and the stock seized. Respondent No.2District Collector, vide proceedings No.B2.45/2020, dated 01.02.2020, directed release of the vehicle only subject to furnishing a Bank F.D.R. for Rs.25,000/- pending finalization of the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶6

petitioner that despite the categoric request made by the petitioner herein in the application for release of both the vehicle and the stock seized, respondent No.2-District Collector did not deal with the aspect of release of the stock, and the order dated 01.02.2020 is absolutely silent as to the request made by the petitioner herein with regard to release of the stock seized.

¶7

¶8

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that since the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are pending before respondent No.2-District Collector, it is not open for the petitioner herein to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

A perusal of the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2-District Collector on the application made by the petitioner herein for release of the vehicle as well as the stock seized, it is very much evident that respondent No.2District Collector did not deal with the request of the petitioner herein for release of the stock seized, as requested in the application. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized stock is not P.D.S. rice, but belongs to the petitioner’s rice mill.

¶10

Having regard to the above submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2-District Collector to pass orders on the request of the petitioner herein with regard to release of the stock seized, vide his application dated 10.01.2020, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶11

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶15

24.07.2020 DRK/IS

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.11998 OF 2020

¶19

24.07.2020

¶20

DRK/IS

¶21

Kamana Ayyanna Babu at Bujji, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamana Ayyanna Babu at Bujji, v. State of A.P.

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

Kapu venkata vishnu satruvu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Budugu Jangala Chinna Sunkanna at Muggu Chinna Sunkanna at Sunkanna Vs State of Ap

Vuanadi Murali Krishna Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Seetharamaiah Kadiyala Vs State of Ap

Snit. P.Chennamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kommana Subba Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh