Allowed

Kanumuri Srinivasa Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2021WP/28594/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a notice demanding security for seized vehicles during proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, the Court held the notice lacked authority and was issued without application of mind. The Court directed respondents to value the vehicles and allowed bail on immovable property security instead of cash guarantee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to get vehicles valued by Motor Vehicle Inspector and release them against immovable property security/third party security by executing personal bond.

Kanumuri Srinivasa Raju, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 28594 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.5 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 Lorries bearing registration Nos.AP27 UB 4167 and AP27 TY 7899, as illegal and without any authority of law.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner is doing transport business and owner of the Lorries bearing registration Nos.AP27 UB 4167 and AP27 TY 7899. The 2^nd 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. 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 2^nd

¶7

¶8

petitioner was transporting the PDS rice. Then, the 4^th respondent 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. The petitioner submitted representation dated 15.11.2021 for release of vehicles. On the said representation and in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.24999 of 2021 dated 29.10.2021, notice dated 26.11.2021 was issued to submit surety for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for release of each lorry 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.5 lakhs for each lorry is an onerous one. The 1^st petitioner is no way concerned with the seized rice. The 1^st petitioner’s family depends entirely on the income derived from transportation of vehicles for their livelihood. The 1^st petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that would be imposed while releasing the vehicles.

¶10

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies stoutly opposed for grant of any direction as the

¶11

¶12

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.

¶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 get the vehicles valued by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector in the presence of the 1^st petitioner after serving notice on him and the 1^st petitioner is directed to furnish immovable property security/third party immovable property security by executing a personal bond in favour of the appropriate authority strictly adhering to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Stamp Act, 1899 as per the value fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. On production of such immovable property security and valid vehicle documents required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the respondents are directed to release the

¶15

¶16

seized Lorries bearing registration Nos.AP27 UB 4167 and AP27 TY 7899 to the 1^st petitioner towards interim custody. The 1^st petitioner shall give proof of ownership of the vehicles and an undertaking that he will not alienate, alter its nature or create any encumbrance over the same and also produce the vehicles as and when required, pending proceedings 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. 28594 of 2021

¶24

13-12-2021

¶25

anr

Kanumuri Srinivasa Raju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanumuri Srinivasa Raju, 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

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

Mittapalli Rama Ligeswara Bikshamaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradersh