Disposed

Kandregula Tulasiram v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/9501/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the seizure of auctioned PDS rice. Relying on precedents, the Court directed the release of seized stock subject to the petitioner furnishing a security equivalent to the stock value and not alienating the securing property until the conclusion of 6-A proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized stock to petitioner upon furnishing security equivalent to stock value within two weeks and non-alienation of securing property during 6-A proceedings.

Kandregula Tulasiram Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

eo
B
,4.

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9501 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kandregula Tulasiram, s/o Malli Naidu Age. 35 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No.9-23, Munagapaka, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^Dist.

¶12

The Joint Collector (CS), Anakapalli Dist., at Anakapalli.

¶13

The Tahsildar,, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli Dist.

¶14

The Deputy Tahsildar (CS), S.Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli^Dist.

¶15

The Sub Inspector of Police, S.Rayavaram PS, Anakapalli^Dist.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in

¶18

conducting seizer panchanama on 24-3-2024 and filing^{acasebeforethe} 2nd respondent under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, on the ground that the PDS rice weighting 2000kgs in 50 bags is transporting in the Bolaro vehicle though the said PDS rice was purchased through the public auction conducted by the 2nd respondent on 14-7-2023 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure as contemplated under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the seizer panchanama dt. 24-3-2024.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized PDS rice pursuant to the Panchanama dt;24-3-2024 weighting 2000 kgs to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M M M SRINIVASA^RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

APHC010186952024

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [0]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 9501/2024

Between:

Kandregula Tulasiram

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶42

2.GP FOR HOME

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶46

“to issue an order, writ or direction more particularlyⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4'^ respondent in conducting seizer panchanama on 24.3.2024

¶47

and filing a case before the 2’^^ respondent under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, on the ground that the PDS rice weighting 2000kgs in 50 bags is transporting in the Bolaro vehicle though^thesaid PDS nee was purchased through the public auction conducted by the 2nd respondent on 14.7.2023 ISi illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure as contemplated under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the seizer panchanama dt.24.3.2024 and pass such other order or orders...”

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶49

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner ISia permanent resident of Munagapaka Village of Visakhapatnam District and is doing poultry feed business from the past 15 years. While so, the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh ordered to dispose of the seized rice available in various PDS godowns. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent issued public auction notification dated 08.07.2023. Pursuant to the said notification, petitioner herein participated in the said auction and stood as highest bidder and received the subject stock Later, the owner of the Sri Vijayalakshmi poultry farm purchased the auctioned rice from the petitioner and requested to deliver the same at his poultiy premises. On 24.03.2024. the petitioner herein hired a vehicle in order to deliver the auctioned neeri to poultry farm. While so. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 inspected and seized the stock. The said seized

¶50

stock was handed over to S.Rayavaram, MLS point under the cover of panchanama. Later, the 4^ respondent requested the 2^^ respondent to initiate 6-A proceedings. Pursuant to the said panchanama, the 5* respondent registered a crime vide FIR No. 123/2024 on 24.03.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶51

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and m the light of the latest order passed by a Division Bench of this Court mi:: Onteru Bhaskar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others i in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to direct the respondent authorities to release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on imposing certain conditions, to protect the interest of the respondents, pending disposal of the 6-A proceedings.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions:

¶53

(i) The respondents shall release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on condition of furnishing bank guarantee or personal or third party immovable property as security equivalent to the value of the seized stock in the said vehicle, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

2022 see OnLine AP 348

¶55

(ii) Further, the petitioner shall not alienate the subject immovable property till disposal of the 6-A proceedings or till completion of period of 90 days whichever is earlier.

¶56

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

assistant REGISTfiAR

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1- The Principal Secretary Civil Supplies Department, State

¶64

Pradesh, Secretariat of Andhra Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.

¶65

The Joint Collector (CS) Anakapalli Dist. at Anakapalli.

¶66

The Tahsildar,, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli Dist.

¶67

The Deputy Tahsildar (CS), S.Rayavaram Mandal Anakapalli Dist.

¶68

5- The Sub Inspector of Police S.Rayavaram PS, Anakapalli Dist.

¶69

6- One CC to SRI. M M M r SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CCs to GP for CIVIL - SUPPLIES, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶71

[OUT]

¶72

Two CCs to GP for HOME
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
. [OUT]

9- Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/04/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9501 of 2024

Ai
'p
-: O ~9
1
(X\ 0 I MAY m ■,V:■f-
-Jf

¶81

iW’
\p “7
<br>A

¶82

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kandregula Tulasiram v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandregula Tulasiram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Rama Subba Reddy, Vs Sasi Busan Kumar, IAS

G Sunitha Vs the State of Ap

D Rakesh Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Tanguturu Dastagiri Basha Vs Sasi Busan Kumar IAS

Raminidi Ramanjaneyulu Vs Shashi Bhushan Kumar,I.a.S

Kodamala Helen Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh