Puppala Suri Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PUPPALA SURI BABU, S/O.BRAHMAM AGED ABOUT - 32 YEARS,OCC- BUSINESS OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ASHOK LEYLAND DOST VEHICLE BEARING NO.AP 16TA 7249 R/O.CHILAKALAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP

¶11

SIRAMSETTY SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.DARMA RAO, AGED ABOUT36 YEARS,OCC- BUSINESS OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.AP 39 TL 6555 R/O.EDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶12

PONNURI SUBRAHMANYAM,, S/O.P. NARASIMHA RAO AGED ABOUT- 41 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. AP 39VB 0766 R/O.BRAHMANA AGRAHARAM, NIZAMPET, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CSI DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR / JOINT COLLECTOR CS, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP.

¶17

2

¶18

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CS, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, GUDUR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP

¶20

THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, GUDUR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT,AP

¶21

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT (CS), VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶22

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GUDUR STATION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P

¶23

THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

dCounsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.THOTA SUNEETHA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR HOME

¶29

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

3.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶31

3

¶32

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶33

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶34

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶35

“…to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing present impugned order bearing Ref No. EC No.59 of 2025 dt. 08.09.2025 and thereby imposing a fine an amount of 100percent stock value U/S 6A (1) (C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the owners of the vehicles i.e. for the vehicle Ashok Leyland Diost bearing No.AP16TA7249 belonging to the 1st petitioner herein, the vehicle bearing No.Intra 50 Vehicle no AP39VB0766 (TATA) belonging to the 2nd petitioner herein and the vehicle bearing No. Intra 30 Vehicle AP39TL6555 (TATA) belonging to the 3 petitioner herein as being illegal, arbitrary. Violative of Principles of Natural Justice, without application of mind, in Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ,contrary to the orders of this Honble Court in WP No. 22932 of 2025 and consequently Set aside the same directing the respondents herein to release the seized vehicles in favour of the petitioners herein and pass.….”

¶36

The facts leading to the case are that the 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle, Ashok Leyland Dost bearing No. AP16TA7249; the 2^nd petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle, TATA Intra 50 bearing No. AP39VB0766; and the 3^rd petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle, TATA Intra 30 bearing No. AP39TL6555. While the matter was so, the said vehicles were hired by one K. Jaya Babu on 04.03.2025 for the purpose of transportation of rice. On a complaint lodged by the 3^rd respondent alleging diversion of PDS rice, the Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Machilipatnam, under the instructions of Vigilance & Enforcement officials, Vijayawada, seized 137.50 quintals of rice along with the petitioners’ vehicles. Consequently, the

¶37

4

¶38

matter was taken up in proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in ECP No.59/2025 pending before the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners submitted representations dated 14.07.2025 before the 2^nd respondent seeking release of the seized vehicles pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As the said representations were not considered and no notice of enquiry was issued in the pending 6A proceedings, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No.22932 of 2025.

¶39

This Court, after hearing both sides, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition on 03.09.2025 with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ representations dated 14.07.2025 for release of the three vehicles, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. However, in spite of the clear and specific directions issued by this Court, the 2^nd respondent neither considered the petitioners’ representations nor afforded any opportunity of hearing, but proceeded to pass the impugned order vide Ref. No. EC No.59 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025, wherein the 2^nd respondent imposed a fine equivalent to 100% of the stock value under Section 6A(1)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and confiscated all the three vehicles along with the alleged stock. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

¶40

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

¶41

5

¶42

It is an admitted fact that the 2^nd respondent has already passed the order dated 08.09.2025 in EC No.59 of 2025 under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Once an order of confiscation and imposition of fine has been passed under Section 6A(1)(c) of the Act, the efficacious remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal under Section 6C of the Act before the appellate authority, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the confiscation order.

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, as a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22932 of 2025 dated 03.09.2025 was not served, by the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings.

¶44

In view of the same, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly annexing the application for release of the stock and three vehicles along with the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.22932 of 2025. On receipt of such application, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same, preferably within a period of

¶46

6

¶47

two (02) weeks thereafter, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both

¶48

sides. No order as to costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA