Allowed

Mittapalli Rama Ligeswara Bikshamaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradersh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2021WP/28565/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued a writ petition challenging an order demanding Rs.8 lakhs security for seized rice stock. The court found the demand issued with non-application of mind and contrary to the Act. It disposed of the petition directing release of stock upon depositing Rs.4 lakhs and furnishing immovable property security for the balance.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized stock upon depositing Rs.4 lakhs in cash/demand draft and furnishing immovable property security/third party immovable security for the remaining value of Rs.18,28,700/- by executing

Mittapalli Rama Ligeswara Bikshamaiah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 28565 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the Notice dated 26.11.2021, whereby the 1^st petitioner was asked to submit surety for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs by way of demand draft or bank guarantee pending proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for release of the seized rice stock i.e., 58,500 Kgs. of rice worth of Rs.22,28,700/-, as illegal and without any authority of law.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner is the proprietor of Kalyani Traders, Piduguralla and doing rice business and transporting the same to Ravi Teja Trading Company, B.Prathipadu, East Godavari District. The 2^nd petitioner is the owner of Lorries bearing registration Nos.AP27 UB 4167 and AP27 TY 7899. On 21.10.2021 at about 8.00 a.m., the 3^rd respondent along with Enforcement Department conducted raid at Agriculture Check Post, NH16 road, Gopalapuram Village, Ravulapalem Mandal and seized the lorries and 1173 bags i.e., 58,660 Kgs. of rice worth of Rs.22,28,700/- on the ground that the 1^st petitioner was transporting the PDS rice. Then, the 4^th respondent

¶7

¶8

registered a case in Crime No.386/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 7(1) of the Act. Then, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 6A of the Act against the petitioner. The 1^st petitioner submitted representation dated 15.11.2021 for release of the seized stock. On the said representation and in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25219 of 2021 dated 02.11.2021, notice dated 26.11.2021 was issued to submit surety for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs for release of seized rice stock of 58,500 Kgs. in the form of either demand draft or bank guarantee, pending proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that imposition of condition of submitting demand draft or bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs for release of the seized stock is an onerous one and seizure of the stock itself merely based on the allegation that the seized rice are PDS rice without looking into the bills submitted by the 1^st petitioner pending proceedings under Section 6A of the Act, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Section 6A(2) of the Act. He further submits that the 1^st petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the immovable property security/third party immovable property security by

¶10

¶11

way of personal bond for the value of the seized stock of Rs.22,28,700/-.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies stoutly opposed for grant of any direction as the impugned notice issued by the 2^nd respondent is reasonable and not suffered from any legal infirmity. It could not be said that the condition imposed in the impugned notice was an onerous one. The 1^st petitioner is doing rice business and he is not a poor man.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the impugned notice was issued with non-application of mind, without any reason and contrary to the provision of Section 6A(2) of the Act. The suspicion of the authorities that the rice transported was PDS rice is reasonable or not needs to be adjudicated.

¶14

Hence, this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to release the seized stock to the 1^st petitioner on depositing an amount of Rs.4 (four) lakhs either in cash or by way of demand draft before the Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari District at Kakinada to the Account No.144010011000231 (IFS Code: UBIN0814407) of Collectorate Branch, Union Bank of India, Kakinada and on

¶15

¶16

furnishing immovable property security/third party immovable security for the remaining value of the seized stock i.e, Rs.18,28,700/- by executing a personal bond, strictly adhering to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Stamp Act, 1899. The release of the stock would be subject to further orders that would be passed in proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 6A of the Act.

¶17

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶19

___________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶20

13-12-2021 anr

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶23

Writ Petition No. 28565 of 2021

¶24

13-12-2021

¶25

anr

Mittapalli Rama Ligeswara Bikshamaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradersh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mittapalli Rama Ligeswara Bikshamaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradersh

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

M/s Sri Durga Industries, Vs Sri Kaki Prakash Reddy

Bhojaraju Appala Naidu, Vs Sri M. Hari Jawaharlal

K. Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Adari Venugopala Rao, Vsp Dist Vs Prl Secy, Civil Supplies Dept, Hyd and 2 Ot

Kavya Swasakthi Group Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanumuri Srinivasa Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh