L Ramesh Vs the Sate of Ap

L RAMESH, S/O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OWNER OF SEIZED STOCK AND LORRY PROPRIETOR OF JAGADAMBA MODERN RICE MILL, D.NO.18,166, GANDHI NAGAR, VELUGODU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE SATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE COLLECTOR, CIVIL SUPPLY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATE SHO, VELUGODU, POLICE STATION, KURNOOL,

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, CIVIL SUPPLY, VELUGODU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 topleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one, in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in seizure of and lorry bearing No.AP21 TT 0203 in Cr.No.128/18 by the 3rd respondent through Panchanama dated25 -12-2018 in Sri Jagadamba Modern Rice Mill, Velugodu village and mandal, kurnool district is wholly

¶21

2

¶22

VS,J W.P.No.3506 of 2019

¶23

illegal, arbitrary, against law and consequentially direct the respondents to set aside the above said panchanama dated 25-12-2018

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶25

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 pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to release seized lorry bearing No.AP21 TT 0203 in Cr.No.128/18 by the 3rd respondent through Panchanama dated;25 -12-2018 in Sri Jagadamba Modern Rice Mill, Velugodu, village 86 Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the writ Petition

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶30

2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶31

3

¶32

VS,J W.P.No.3506 of 2019

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 3506/2019

¶35

ORDER :

¶36

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶37

“ …to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in seizure of lorry bearing No AP21 TT 0203 in Cr.No.128/18 by the 3^rd respondent through Panchanama dated 25.12.2018 in Sri Jagadamba Modern Rice Mill, Velugodu village and mandal, Kurnool district is wholly illegal, arbitrary, against law and consequentially direct the respondents to set aside the above said panchanama dated 25.12.2018…”

¶38

When the matter came up for hearing, on 20.03.2019, this Court passed the following interim order:-

¶39

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be an interim direction to respondents to release lorry bearing No.AP 21 TT 0203 to the petitioner on condition of furnishing personal security bonds for the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle to third respondent and he shall also give an undertaking that he will not alienate, mortgage, create any third party rights in respect of the vehicles in question or alter its nature pending disposal of the writ petition.”

¶40

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished a copy of the proceedings of the District Collector, Kurnool, dated 26.02.2019, wherein it is stated that 6A proceedings were issued against the petitioner in the year 2018 and a show cause notice dated 25.04.2019 was issued to him. Thereafter, the Tahsildar vide reference B/701/2018, dated 27.12.2018 filed a report in 6A of the EC

¶41

4

¶42

VS,J W.P.No.3506 of 2019

¶43

Act, 1955 against the petitioner’s mill for contravention of the provisions of the APSTPDS Control Order, 2018. Basing on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the District Collector(CS) issued proceedings vide CS1/92/2018, dated 25.04.2019 directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for Rs.2,85,000/- for release of the seized vehicle. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee and thereafter the seized stocks in 2832 rice bags were released to the petitioner.

¶44

In view of the same, as the seized stocks have already been released by the respondents in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court, no further cause survives in this case.

¶45