P. Viswanadha Reddy Vs State of A.P.

¶1

APHC010134292018

¶2

[3333]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5877/2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. VISWANADHA REDDY, S/O P. OBUL REDDY, AGE 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VENKATESWARA RICE MILL, VANAMTHOPU CENTER, R.Y. PALEM VILLAGE, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶9

SANA SRIHARI REDDY, S/O SRIRAMULUSETTY, AGED 43 YEARS, OWNER OF THE LORRY, RIO JANGAMPALLI VILLAGE, A.S.PETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE JOINT COLLECTOR CS, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT,

¶14

THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PODALAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MANAGER, A.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR, PODALAKUR, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶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 please to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in seizing 1890 Kgs of paddy (63bags x 30 Kgs), 350 Kgs of rice (loose) and 3050 Kgs (61 bags x 50Kgs) of damaged rice from the mill and 21,000 Kgs of rice (840 bags x 25 Kgs) belongs to the 1st petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 26TC 7459 belongs to the 2nd petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Orders made there under and also declare that the orders in Rc.B.89/2018, dt.19.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent directing the 4th respondent to take possession of the seized stocks and 5th respondent to dispose of the damaged rice in public auction and further directing the 2nd petitioner to furnish a bank FDR for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of lorry as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and unsustainable and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶22

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 stocks of 1890 Kgs of paddy (63bags x 30 Kgs), 350 Kgs of rice (loose), 3050 Kgs (61 bags x 50Kgs) of damaged rice and 21,000 Kgs of rice (840 bags x 25 Kgs) to the 1st petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 26TC 7459 to the 2nd petitioner by suspending the orders in Rc.B.89/2018, dt.19.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶24

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 vacate the order passed in IA.NO. 01/2018 in W.P.No. 5877/2018 dated. 23.02.2018 and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

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 maybe pleased to vacate the interim order in IA No.1 of 2018 in WP No. 5877 of 2018 dated 23.02.2018 and pass

¶27

3

¶28

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶30

1.V SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1 MD.SALEEM SC For APSCSC Limited,Vijayawda

¶33

2 KALAMATA R BABU(SC AP CIVIL SUPPL CORPN)

¶34

3 GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

4

¶37

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶40

seeking the following relief:

¶41

“…t o issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in seizing 1890 Kgs of paddy (63bags x 30 Kgs), 350 Kgs of rice (loose) and 3050 Kgs (61 bags x 50Kgs) of damaged rice from the mill and 21,000 Kgs of rice (840 bags x 25 Kgs) belongs to the 1st petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 26TC 7459 belongs to the 2^nd petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Orders made there under and also declare that the orders in Rc.B.89/2018, dt.19.02.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent directing the 4^th respondent to take possession of the seized stocks and 5^th respondent to dispose of the damaged rice in public auction and further directing the 2^nd petitioner to furnish a bank FDR for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of lorry as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and unsustainable and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure…”

¶42

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶43

a) The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Venkateswara Rice Mill and

¶44

is engaged in the business of food grains. His business was to purchase paddy directly from ryots under valid vouchers, mill the same in his rice mill, and sell the resultant rice in the open market. He is a bona fide miller conducting business in accordance with the procedure in vogue.

¶45

b) While the matter stood thus, on 29.01.2018, the 1^st petitioner loaded 840 bags of rice each bag weighing 25 kgs in a lorry bearing registration No.AP 26 TC 7459 belonging to the 2^nd petitioner to transport the same to Krishnapatnam Port. The said transaction was covered by a bill. While the

¶46

5

¶47

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶48

lorry was crossing the gate of the mill, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, Nellore along with his staff stopped the lorry and enquired with the driver, who stated that the rice was being transported to Krishnapatnam Port and the same was covered by Bill No.11, dated 29.01.2018.

¶49

c) Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent along with mediators inspected the 1^st petitioner‟s mill and found a stock of 63 bags of paddy each weighing 30 kgs, 350 kgs of loose rice and 61 bags of damaged rice. The 1^st petitioner was questioned regarding the particulars of the transport and the stocks available in the mill, to which he replied that he had purchased paddy from various ryots of Indukurupet Mandal, milling the same and selling the resultant rice in the open market. He also stated that he had engaged the lorry belonging to the 2^nd petitioner for transporting the above mentioned stocks.

¶50

d) When the 3^rd respondent enquired about the „A‟ and „B‟ Registers, the 1^st petitioner explained that there was no custom milling paddy in his mill and therefore, there was no question of maintaining the „A‟ Register. The „B‟ Register, however, was being maintained and had been handed over to the Auditor for audit purposes. He further stated that the Central Order on stockholding limits had lapsed and therefore, the State Order, i.e., A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, was not applicable to paddy and rice. Consequently, there was no requirement to maintain the „B‟ register, though he was maintaining it as a matter of record.

¶51

6

¶52

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶53

e) Despite the fact that neither paddy nor rice are Scheduled Commodities and no transport restrictions were in force, the 3^rd respondent illegally seized the lorry along with the stock under the cover of a mediatornama, alleging that the petitioners had violated the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, and that he ought to have maintained „A‟ and „B‟ registers as per the levy policy under KMS (Kharif Marketing Season) 2018-19. The 3^rd respondent forwarded a report to the 2^nd respondent under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶54

f) Subsequently, the petitioners filed a petition before the 2^nd respondent on 02.02.2018, seeking release of the seized stock and the lorry, stating that there were no transport restrictions on paddy and rice with effect from 01.12.2014 and that the licensing system had been rescinded; therefore, the question of maintaining any registers did not arise, as the consignments of paddy and rice were treated as free-sale commodities; no case was made out against the petitioners and that there were no irregularities or illegalities. Along with the petition, the petitioners submitted an extract of the mill's „B‟ register and copies of the ryot vouchers and contended that there was nothing unlawful in transporting rice under a valid bill and, therefore, neither the rice nor the lorry was liable for seizure or confiscation.

¶55

g) However, without examining the petition and without considering that the seizure was based on violations of a rescinded order, the 2^nd respondent

¶56

7

¶57

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶58

passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 whereby the District Manager, APSCSC Ltd., Nellore (4th respondent) was directed to take possession of the seized stock of 21,000 kgs of rice, 350 kgs of loose rice, and 1,890 kgs of paddy from the custodian, and further directed the Tahsildar, Podalakur (5th respondent), to take possession of 3,050 kgs of damaged rice and dispose of the same through public auction. Additionally, the 2^nd petitioner was directed to produce a bank FDR for Rs.2,00,000/- to obtain release orders.

¶59

h) The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order without considering their petition for release of the seized stock and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. It Is further contended that though the Government of Andhra Pradesh has introduced a scheme called „custom milling rice‟ from KMS 2012-13 and after introduction of the same no levy is collected from KMS 2013-14. The Government of India has issued a letter dated 27.03.2015 in response to the letter addressed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh with regard to validity of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, stating that with the lapse of Central Order on stock holding limits enabling the States/UTs to fix stock limit, any order issued by States/UTs would also ceased automatically. In pursuance of the same, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a letter vide CCS.Ref.No.P1(3)/1831/2014, dated 09.04.2015 stating that in view of lapse of the GOI S.O.No.3543(E), dated 29.11.2013, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 is not applicable in respect of „Paddy‟

¶60

8

¶61

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶62

and „Rice‟ from 01.12.2014. In view of the same, neither the paddy nor the rice is Scheduled Commodity nor there are any restrictions on transport of the same and no license is required to do the business.

¶63

When the matter came up for admission on 23.02.2018, this Court passed the following interim order:

¶64

“There shall be a direction to the respondents to release the seized goods and vehicle subject to the condition of the petitioners furnishing personal security to the satisfaction of the 2^nd respondent.”

¶65

The 2^nd respondent filed a counter stating that, in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 23.02.2018, the 2^nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 16.03.2018, directed the 1^st petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the release of the seized stock, duly adhering to the directions of this Court. Similarly, the Station House Officer, Podalakur, was directed to release the lorry bearing registration No.AP26TC7459 to the 2^nd petitioner herein, who is the owner of the said lorry. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Podalakur, released the lorry to the 2^nd petitioner on furnishing his personal bond. However, as the 1^st petitioner has not furnished the bank guarantee as directed by this Court in the order dated 16.03.2018, the authorities could not release the said stock, but however they are ready to release the seized stock upon submission of the required bank guarantee by the 1^st petitioner.

¶66

9

¶67

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶68

It is further admitted in the counter that, as per A.P.C.C.S. Ref. No. P1/1831/2014 dated 09.04.2015, a license is not required for the transport of rice and paddy, however,the same is also clearly states that the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 is still in force, and action can be taken against millers/traders for violation of the provisions of the said Levy Order. It is further stated that the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, dated 25.02.1984, under Clause (16), clearly stipulates that millers or dealers shall maintain “A” and “B” Registers, and as the 1st petitioner herein failed to maintain proper records as required, action was initiated. It is further stated that the petitioners approached this Court without furnishing any supporting documents, hence, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

¶69

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

¶70

As seen from the record, admittedly pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 23.02.2018, the vehicle was released to the 2^nd petitioner, however, as the 1^st petitioner has not furnished the bank guarantee as per the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, the seized stock was not released in favour of the 1^st petitioner.

¶71

Be that as it may, it is to be noted that the Government of India vide letter dated 27.03.2015, in response to the letter addressed by the Government with regard to the validity of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 clarified that with the

¶72

10

¶73

VS,J W.P.No.5877 of 2018

¶74

lapse of the central order on stock holding limits enabling the States/UTs to fix stock limit, any order issued by States/UTs would also ceased automatically. In pursuance of the same, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a letter vide CCS.Ref.No.P1(3)/1831/2014, dated 09.04.2015 stating that in view of lapse of the GOI S.O.NO.3543(E), dated 29.11.2013, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 is not applicable in respect of „Paddy‟ and „Rice‟ from 01.12.2014.

¶75

The respondents did not dispute the fact that the aforesaid Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 is not applicable in respect of paddy and rice from 01.12.2014. That being the position, the question of seizing the stock on the ground of alleged variations in the stock or failure to maintain registers does not arise, and the impugned order issued on those grounds is unsustainable.

¶76

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.02.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petitioner, shall stand closed.

¶78

_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶79

Date : 02.09.2025. KGR

P. Viswanadha Reddy v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Viswanadha Reddy v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kumara Swamy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Sambashiva Rao Vs State of Ap

The bajaj allianz general insurance company ltd., Vs Thangirala venkateswara Rao

Smt. Bollu Vijaya Laxmi, Vs Prl.Secy., Civil Supplies Dept.

D Siva Parvathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C.S.Viswanatham S/o. Srihari Rao(Died) per Lr 2 Vs State of Andhra Pradesh