Dismissed

M/S.Sri Sudarshan Traders v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Guntur Dist,and 3

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2021WP/647/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside the illegal seizure of PDS rice stock. The court found that the petitioner failed to submit a properly extruded application with requisite security as per interim order directions, despite receiving notifications.

What did the court decide?

No petition. Dismissal of the writ petition and associated miscellaneous petitions.

M/S.Sri Sudarshan Traders Vs State of… — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 647 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings vide Ref.No.I(2)/2793/2016 dated 24.12.2016 by seizing the stock declared as PDS rice without being certified by competent authority, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same.

¶5

The petitioner claims that he is running rice business under the name and style of ‘M/s.Sri Sudarshan Traders’ at D.No.5/10, Gandla Street, Badvel, Kadapa District. On 09.12.2016 at 6.30 a.m., the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer checked the vehicle bearing registration No.AP26Y 2999 at Markapuram Village, Porumamilla Mandal road point and seized the vehicle along with stock i.e., 406 bags of rice under the cover of Panchanama dated 09.12.2016 though the said stock was being transported with valid documents. Thereafter, a case was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner filed a petition on 19.12.2016 for release of the seized stock before the 3^rd respondent. However, on 24.12.2016, the 3^rd respondent

¶6

¶7

passed the interim disposal order and directed the 4^th respondent to dispose of the seized stock and remit the sale proceeds under Revenue Deposits till disposal of case under Section 6A of the Act and report remittance particulars to the District Supply Officer, Kadapa within 15 days. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

This Court, on 05.01.2017, while ordering notice before admission, stayed the sale of seized stock directed through the impugned proceedings for a period of four weeks. Thereafter, on 05.02.2018, passed interim order to release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on furnishing immovable property security for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs or bank guarantee for an equal sum to the satisfaction of the 3^rd respondent – Joint Collector. It is also directed that as soon as the petitioner furnishes the security or bank guarantee, within one week therefrom, the stock shall be released and till such time, no sale of the seized stock shall be effected.

¶9

The 4^th respondent – Tahsildar filed counter stating that the petitioner’s vehicle was seized by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Porumamilla for illegal transportation of PDS rice and also initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 6A of the Act.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner filed an application vide Ref.No.I(2)/68/2017 for release of the seized stock along with two solvency certificates

¶11

¶12

for Rs.2 lakhs each issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Anantharajupuram G.P., Badvel on 17.02.2018, in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 05.02.2018.

¶13

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on instructions, states that proceedings under Section 6A of the Act are still pending.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner having obtained an order on 05.02.2018 for release of the seized stock on furnishing immovable property security for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs or bank guarantee, failed to submit proper application along with immovable property security/bank guarantee for release of the seized stock as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Stamp Act, 1899. The respondent authorities are also failed to inform the petitioner about furnishing of immovable property security along with necessary documents.

¶15

In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

07-12-2021

anr

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶22

Writ Petition No. 647 of 2017

¶23

07-12-2021

¶24

anr

M/S.Sri Sudarshan Traders v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Guntur Dist,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sri Sudarshan Traders v. State of Ap,Prl.Scy,C.S.,Guntur Dist,and 3

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

K.M. Abdual Hafeez Khan, Vs Ms. Nagalakshmi Selvarajan I.A.S.

Paidipalli Radhakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J.Surendra setty Vs The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Kandula Bapuji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.v.Vara Prasad Vs Sri.P.Kotwararao IAS

Shaik China Habeeb Vs S Venkataramanaiah