P.Venkata Konda Reddy, Kurnool District & 56 Others Vs the Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District, Rep.by Pp.

Sirigi Nagi Reddy and 37 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Mandal Revenue Inspector ...RESPONDENT Criminal Revision Case No.581 of 2011 Between:

¶31

Udelu Rama Chandra Reddy, Kurnool District & 64 others ...PETITIONER AND Mandal Revenue Inspector, Dornipadu Kurnool Dist Rep By ...RESPONDENT PP

¶32

Criminal Revision Case No.579 of 2011 Between: B. Vebjata Ramana and 55 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Mandal Revenue Inspector ...RESPONDENT Criminal Revision Case No.566 of 2011 Between: M. Naganna, Kurnool District and 2 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Dy Tahsildar Cs Nandikotkur Kurnool Dist Rep By PP ...RESPONDENT Hyd Criminal Revision Case No.562 of 2011 Between:

¶33

B. Pullaiah, Kurnool District and 32 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND

¶34

3

¶35

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶36

Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sirvel Kurnool Dist Rep By PP ...RESPONDENT Hyd

¶37

Criminal Revision Case No.564 of 2011

¶38

Between:

¶39

P. Venkata Ramana and another

¶40

...PETITIONER(S)

¶41

AND

¶42

The Mandal Revenue Inspector ...RESPONDENT Criminal Revision Case No.784 of 2011

¶43

Between:

¶44

Kamatham Balaiah, & 65 Others, and Others AND

¶45

...PETITIONER(S)

¶46

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd ...RESPONDENT Criminal Revision Case No.1188 of 2009 Between:

¶47

Sadguru Sai Traders ...PETITIONER AND

¶48

The State of A.P

¶49

...RESPONDENT

¶50

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 11.03.2025

¶51

4

¶52

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶53

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶54

THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶55

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

¶56

Whether the copy of Judgment may be

¶57

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

¶58

Whether His Lordship wish to see the

¶59

fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

¶60

________________________________ DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶61

5

¶62

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶63

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶64

¶65

Criminal Revision Case No: 561 of 2011

¶66

% 11.03.2025

¶67

Between:

¶68

P. Venkata Konda Reddy, Kurnool District & 56 others and ...PETITIONER(S) Others

¶69

AND

¶70

The Deputy Tahsildar Nandyal Kurnool District Rep By Pp ...RESPONDENT

¶71

Criminal Revision Case No.587 of 2011

¶72

Between:

¶73

Muvva Gopal, Kurnool District and 19 others

¶74

...PETITIONER(S)

¶75

AND

¶76

The Mandal Revenue Inspector Chagalmarri Kurnool Rep ...RESPONDENT By PP

¶77

Criminal Revision Case No.586 of 2011

¶78

Between:

¶79

C. Chandrasekhara Reddy, Kurnool District and 17 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND

¶80

The Dy Tahsildar Nandyal Kurnool District Rep By PP Hyd ...RESPONDENT

¶81

Criminal Revision Case No.585 of 2011

¶82

Between:

¶83

P. Kulai Swamy and 12 others

¶84

...PETITIONER(S)

¶85

AND

¶86

The Mandal Revenue Inspector

¶87

...RESPONDENT

¶88

6

¶89

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch

¶90

Dated 11.03.2025

¶91

Criminal Revision Case No.584 of 2011

¶92

Between:

¶93

Sirigi Nagi Reddy and 37 others

¶94

...PETITIONER(S)

¶95

AND

¶96

The Mandal Revenue Inspector ...RESPONDENT Criminal Revision Case No.581 of 2011 Between:

¶97

Udelu Rama Chandra Reddy, Kurnool District & 64 others ...PETITIONER AND

¶98

Mandal Revenue Inspector, Dornipadu Kurnool Dist Rep By ...RESPONDENT PP

¶99

Criminal Revision Case No.579 of 2011 Between: B. Vebjata Ramana and 55 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Mandal Revenue Inspector ...RESPONDENT Criminal Revision Case No.566 of 2011 Between: M. Naganna, Kurnool District and 2 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Dy Tahsildar Cs Nandikotkur Kurnool Dist Rep By PP ...RESPONDENT Hyd

¶100

Criminal Revision Case No.562 of 2011 Between:

¶101

B. Pullaiah, Kurnool District and 32 others ...PETITIONER(S) AND

¶102

7

¶103

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶104

...RESPONDENT

¶105

Mandal Revenue Inspector, Sirvel Kurnool Dist Rep By PP Hyd

¶106

Criminal Revision Case No.564 of 2011

¶107

Between:

¶108

P. Venkata Ramana and another

¶109

...PETITIONER(S)

¶110

AND

¶111

The Mandal Revenue Inspector

¶112

...RESPONDENT

¶113

Criminal Revision Case No.784 of 2011

¶114

Between:

¶115

Kamatham Balaiah, & 65 Others, and Others

¶116

...PETITIONER(S)

¶117

AND

¶118

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd

¶119

...RESPONDENT

¶120

Criminal Revision Case No.1188 of 2009

Between:

Sadguru Sai Traders

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of A.P

...RESPONDENT

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K. V. Raghu Veer

¶129

^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr K. Sandeep, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶130

< Gist:

¶131

> Head Note:

¶132

? Cases referred:

¶133

1) 2008 (7) SCC 38

¶134

2) 1990 SCC OnLine Pat 174

¶135

3) 1984 P.L.J.R. 568 4) 1977 B.B.C.J. 151

¶136

5) (2004) 3 SCC 723

¶137

8

¶138

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶139

THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶140

Crl.R.C.Nos: 561, 784, 587, 586, 585, 584, 581, 579, 566, 562, 564 of 2011 and 1188 of 2009

¶141

COMMON ORDER:

¶142

The revisions (12) twelve in number have been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the orders passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereby and whereunder the orders of the confiscation passed by the learned District Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1951 (for short ‘the E.C. Act.’) are confirmed. 10% of the excess stock of paddy stored in M/s. Kothapalli Farmers Ware House, Kothapalli Metta Village was confiscated while releasing 90% of the excess stock of paddy to the farmers with a direction to them to dispose the same in the open market within one week from the date of receipt of the order.

¶143

All the revisions have arisen out of the same or similar causes of action, therefore, they are heard and decided by this common order.

¶144

Briefly stated, the Deputy Tahsildar, Nandyal, Kurnool District, on receipt of credible information that some of the Benami traders of the surrounding areas of Nandyal were hoarding huge stocks of paddy at Kothapalli Farmers Warehouse, Kothapalli Metta Village, Nandyal Mandal by purchasing paddy from the ryots, the Deputy Tahsildar along with officials of the Vigilance and Enforcement had inspected the premises of Kothapalli

¶145

9

¶146

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶147

Farmers Warehouses, Kothapalli Metta Village on 18.06.2009 and noticed that the proprietor of the Warehouse was conducting business in the premises. On verification of the premises, the inspection team noticed that 52,845 bags of paddy containing 75 Kgs each totaling 39,633.75 qtls were in the possession of the proprietor of A.V. Rural Warehouse, Allagadda. On physical verification of stocks available on the ground and when compared to the stock register, warehouse receipt, tripartite agreement pattadar pass books etc., it was noticed that the Benami traders hoarded the entire paddy in the name of 175 ryots and caused much inconvenience to the everyday consumer, creating artificial scarcity in the open market. It was felt that all the revisionists had contravened provisions of Clause 2(K) and Clause 10(I) and 18(2)(b) of AP Scheduled Commodities and Dealers (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 2008 read with GOMs.No.49 Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies Department dated 25.11.2008 and Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.’ The Deputy Tahsildar seized the available stocks of paddy and reported the matter to the learned District Collector and District Magistrate for taking necessary action against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act’.

¶148

The learned District Collector ordered for interim disposal of the seized stock in the interest of the public to control the rising prices. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Nandyal, was authorized to dispose of the seized stock through public auction. The learned District Collector had appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry against the farmers by getting relevant documents and out of 175 total depositors/farmers 140 farmers had appeared to the inquiry on

¶149

10

¶150

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶151

01.07.2009 at the premises of the godown and produced the relevant records and other evidence viz., pattadar pass books etc., to prove themselves as agriculturists and their extent of land and yielding particulars. Based on the details compiled by the prescribed limit fixed @ 30 qtls per acre, a quantity of 512.85 as shown in the relevant Colmn No.14 was confiscated by the government by releasing the remaining quantity to the farmers who attended for the inquiry.

¶152

Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned District Collect had passed the impugned orders without following the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which mandates that under the report submitted by the respondent, the learned District Collector ought to have issued a notice calling for the objections from the respective farmers and ought to have framed charges and conducted an inquiry as contemplated under ‘the E.C Act’. Therefore, nonissuance of statutory notice is hit by the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that Sections 6-A and B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ mandate the learned District Collector to conduct an inquiry himself, and he cannot delegate that power to any subordinate authority. Even the subordinate authority was not given sufficient time to conduct an inquiry, only one day time was given. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned District Collector which was confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge are hit by the principles of natural justice and they are liable to be interfered and set aside.

¶153

11

¶154

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶155

Per contra, Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that notices were issued by the Tahsildar requiring the farmers to submit their objections for the report contemplated under 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.,’ and thus sufficient opportunity was given to the farmers before confiscation order was passed. In the appeal, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, liberally considered the case of the petitioners and ordered only 10% of the confiscation of the seized stock. Therefore, that order is not required to be interfered with inasmuch as the principles of natural justice were complied with by the learned District Collector. It is further argued that even the judgments of the learned Principal Sessions Judge also clearly depict that the procedure as contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ was followed. It is further argued that as per Section 6-B(3) of ‘the E.C Act.,’ even if there is any irregularity or any defect in the notice contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ order of confiscation of the Essential Commodity shall not get invalidated. Therefore, it is urged to dismiss all the revisions.

¶156

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

¶157

8. Now the point for consideration is:

¶158

Whether the judgments in Crl.A.Nos.130,128, 188, 187, 117, 132, 186, 125, 142, 131, 130, 115, of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 and 154 of 2007 dated 24.03.2009 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?

¶159

12

¶160

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶161

9. For better appreciation and understanding of the batch cases, it is

¶162

apposite to extract Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.,’ as under:

¶163

“6-A. Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the Presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced for inspection before him, and if he is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the order may order confiscation of—

¶164

(a) the essential commodity so seized;

¶165

(b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found; and

¶166

(c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity:

¶167

Provided that without prejudice to any action which may be taken under any other provision of this Act, no foodgrains or edible oilseeds in pursuance of an order made under section 3 in relation thereto from a producer shall, if the seized foodgrains or edible oilseeds have been produced by him, be confiscated under this section:

¶168

Provided further that in the case of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the owner of such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a fine not exceeding the market price at the date of seizure of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance.

¶169

Where the Collector, on receiving a report of seizure or on inspection of any essential commodity under sub-section (1), is of the opinion that the essential commodity is subject to speedy and natural decay or it is otherwise expedient in the public interest so to do, he may―

¶170

(i) order the same to be sold at the controlled price, if any, fixed for such essential commodity under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force; or

¶171

13

¶172

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶173

(ii) where no such price is fixed, order the same to be sold by public auction:

¶174

Provided that in case of foodgrains, the Collector may, for its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, order the same to be sold through fair price shops at the price fixed by the Central Government or by the State Government, as the case may be, for the retail sale of such foodgrains to the public.

¶175

(3) where any essential commodity is sold, as aforesaid, the sale proceeds thereof, after deduction of the expenses of any such sale or auction or other incidental expenses relating thereto, shall―

¶176

(a) where no order or confiscation is ultimately passed by the Collector,

¶177

(b) where an order passed on appeal under sub-section (1) of section 6C so requires, or

¶178

(c) where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under this section, the person concerned is acquitted”

¶179

A fair reading of Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act.,’ it can be understood that

¶180

upon of the receipt the information/report about the seizer of any Essential Commodity, it is incumbent on the part of the learned District Collector to direct the Essential Commodity be produced for inspection before him and if it is satisfied that there has been a contravention of the orders, he may order for confiscation of the commodities seized subject to the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act’.

¶181

For better understanding of the case Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ is reproduced as follows:

¶182

“6-B. (1) No order confiscating any essential commodity, package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A unless the owner of such essential commodity, package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or the person from whom it is seized—

¶183

14

¶184

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶185

(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity package, covering or receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance;

¶186

(b) is given an opportunity of making a presentation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and

¶187

(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

¶188

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under section 6A if the owner of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the Collector that it was used in carrying the essential commodity without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

¶189

(3) No order confiscating any essential commodity package, covering, receptacle, animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice, given under clause (a) of sub-section (l), if, in giving such notice, the provisions of that clause have been substantially complied with.”

¶190

A careful reading of Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,' it is crystal clear that

¶191

before passing any order for confiscation of the Essential Commodity, it is mandatory on the part of the learned District Collector to issue a show cause notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the essential commodity under Clause (a) of Section 6B of ‘the E.C Act;’ a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation shall be given under Clause (b); a reasonable opportunity of being heard within such reasonable time shall be given under Clause (c) of the notice as contemplated under Section 6-A of ‘the E.C Act’. As seen from

¶192

15

¶193

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶194

the impugned orders, there are no references about issuance of notices as contemplated under Section 6-B ‘the E.C Act.,’ containing the above mentioned requirements. The impugned orders are not reflecting that the learned District Collector had conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act’. The impugned orders do not contain the charges under which the petitioners/ryots had allegedly violated the control orders.

¶195

In this regard, it is opposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Panjab¹ wherein it is categorically held at para No.13 that an order passed without issuing a show cause notice is revisable and to be interfered and set aside. Notice under Section 6-B(1) of ‘the E.C Act.,’ must contain all details and the grounds of proposed confiscation proceedings. Further, the High Court of Patna in Mahabir Prasad Bajaj v. State of Bihar² held that vague notice vitiates entire proceedings and the provisions of Section 6-B(1) of ‘the E.C Act.,’ are mandatory. This judgment gives emphasis on the point that the notice must contain all material facts or allegations.

¶196

In Jhabarmal Mukin v. State of Bihar³ , a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna held that the confiscation was invalid because the requirements of section 6B of ‘the E.C. Act.,’ was not mentioned in the notice. It was held that on plain reading, sub-section (3) is applicable to cases where

¶197

there has been a substantial compliance. This shows that substantial compliance of the notice under section 6B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ is a must. The

¶198

1 2008 (7) SCC 38

¶199

2 1990 SCC OnLine Pat 174

¶200

3 1984, P.L.J.R. 568

¶201

16

¶202

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶203

question of defect or irregularity will come subsequently. When the notice itself has not been substantially complied with as required under section 6B (a) of ‘the E.C Act.,’ there is no question that any defect or irregularity can be ignored under sub-section (3) of section 6B of ‘the E.C Act’.

¶204

In Md. Ayub Bismillah Rice and Oil Mills v. Collector West Champaran⁴ , it is held that if a notice is issued without giving any details of violation of the Licensing Order, such type of notice shall not fulfill the requirements of section 6B of ‘the E.C Act.’ It was pointed out that the notice issued must set out in detail, the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the essential commodities.

¶205

In the instant case, as can be seen from the impugned order the learned District Collector had authorized a certain cadre of the officers to conduct inquiry obtaining the information and submit report within only one day. Sections 6-A and 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ contemplate that the inquiry has to be conducted by the learned District Collector himself; he cannot delegate the power of conducting the inquiry to some subordinate authorities. The maximum „delegatus non potest delegare‟ has to be applied where a statute clearly and strictly directs the learned District Collector to conduct himself an inquiry as contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ he cannot further delegate his powers to any of his subordinates. The Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶206

Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar⁵ , at para No.16 held that the maxim ‘ Delegatus non potest delegare‟ is a well-known maxim which means in the

4 1977 B.B.C.J. 151

5 (2004) 3 SCC 723

17

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶211

absence of any power a delegatee cannot sub-delegate its power to another person. The impugned orders do not reflect about issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which is a repository of the principles of natural justice. Any order that is passed against the principles of natural justice is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶212

Though the learned Sessions Judge in his judgments referred that the learned District Collector strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ the record reveals that no such notices were issued to the farmers by the learned District Collector. Indeed, there was a reference that Tahsildar 25.06.2009 issued notices to the farmers, but those notices are not appropriate and adequate notices as contemplated under Section 6-B of ‘the E.C Act.’

¶213

Of course, the orders of the learned District Collector do not reflect that he had ordered only 10% of the seized stock to be confiscated by the Government, but the statement appended to the impugned proceedings disclosed that quantity to the confiscation to the government is 10% from out of the quantity seized from the farmers. The 90% of the stock seized was directed to be given to the farmers. When the learned District Collector found that the petitioners were the genuine farmers who had produced the grains from their respective fields what was the reason that prompted the learned District Collector is unknown to impose 10% of the stock seized for confiscation to the government. There was no justification to order even 10% of the confiscation to the government since the statements recorded by the

¶214

18

¶215

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶216

officers concerned from the farmers clearly revealed that they produced commodities from their fields. To buttress, this they had also referred about to the pattadar passbooks and other documents relating to their cultivation.

¶217

Be that as it may, the impugned orders suffer from severe material irregularity which cannot be sustained. Therefore, the notice under Section 6- B of ‘the E.C Act.,’ which was the genesis for initiating the confiscation proceedings, when appears to have been not at all given, the confiscation proceedings themselves have become invalid for want of substantial compliance. Ergo, the impugned judgments passed by the learnd Sessions Judge and consequently the impugned orders passed by the learned District Collector are liable to be interfered and set aside. Resultantly, the judgments passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the Criminal Appeals are also liable to be set aside.

¶218

In the result, the revisions are allowed setting aside the judgments in Crl.A.Nos.130,128, 188, 187, 117, 132, 186, 125, 142, 131, 130, 115, of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 and 154 of 2007 dated 24.03.2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, consequently the impugned orders Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/63/2009 dated 13.07.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/42/2009 dated 18.07.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/55/2009 dated 13.07.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/59/2009 dated 16.10.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/49/2009 dated 16.10.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/49/2009 dated 13.07.209, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/50/2009 dated 13.07.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/42/2009 dated 16.10.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/52/2009 dated 13.07.2009,

¶219

19

¶220

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶221

Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/51/2009 dated 13.07.2009, Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/54/2009 dated 15.07.2009 and Rc.DSO/CS1/EC.No/07/2007 dated 21.12.2007 passed by the learned District Collector, Kurnool are also set aside. It is needless to say that the authorities have to pay the value of the 10% seized stock to the petitioners forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶222

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶223

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶224

Dated: 11.03.2025 Note : LR copy to be marked B/o KMS

¶225

20

¶226

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2011 and batch Dated 11.03.2025

¶227

THE HON’BLE SRI DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO