Ambati Mallikarjuna Vs the State of Ap

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 an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing 1192 bags of boiled rice weighing 26 kgs each under cover of Mahazarnama, dt.28.08.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under and set aside the same and direct the respondents to release the seized stock to the petitioner and not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure and pass

¶18

2

¶19

IA 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release 1192 bags of boiled rice weighing 26 kgs each to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of writ petition and pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶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 pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 10.01.2024 in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.742 of 2024 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.V SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.742 of 2024

¶31

ORDER :

¶32

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

¶33

<….to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing 1192 bags of boiled rice weighing 26 kgs each under cover of Mahazarnama, dt.28.08.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under and set aside the same and direct the respondents to release the seized stock to the petitioner and not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure and pass…=

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private businessman doing business in boiled rice. The petitioner purchased 30,992 Kgs of boiled rice from one Harinath Reddy of Sullurpet and kept the same in Tirumala Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Narayanareddypeta of Nellore Mandal, for storing the same in the godown.

¶35

While so, on 28.08.2023, the 3rd respondent, along with the Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, visited the rice mill where the petitioner?s stock was stored and found that it was boiled rice. Though the petitioner clearly stated that he purchased the said rice at Sullurpet, transported it to Nellore, and stored it in the godown to sell in different shops, and that it was private rice and did not belong to any schemes of the Government, the 3rd respondent, along with the Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, high-handedly seized the stock of the petitioner under the cover of Mahazarnama dated 28.08.2023,

¶36

4

¶37

falsely alleging that the boiled rice sent by Telangana State FCI to Tamil Nadu State FCI for distribution to the poor was purchased at a lesser rate, transported to the mill, and stored there for selling at higher prices to the people, and that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The 3rd respondent filed a 6-A case before the 2nd respondent.

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner is that, without having any jurisdiction, the 3rd respondent has seized the stock of the petitioner under the cover of Mahazarnama dated 28.08.2023. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶39

When this Writ Petition came for admission on 10.01.2024, this Court

¶40

passed the following interim order:

¶41

< Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction which reads as follows: Directing the respondents to release the seized stock to the petitioner on condition of the petitioner furnishing personal security bond for an amount equivalent to the value of the seized stock.=

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant

¶43

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶44

For better appreciation of the case, Clause 19(f) of the Control Order,

¶45

2018, is extracted hereunder:

¶46

<19(f) Purchase of rice supplied / intended for supply through Public Distribution System either from the card holder or from the fair price shop dealer or any middle man or other source. Otherwise, such fair price shop dealer or middle man or other person involved shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority.=

¶47

The definition of <Government= under Clause 12(y) of the Control Order, 2018, reads as under: <2(y) <Government= means the Government of Andhra Pradesh= Clause 2(hh) of the Control Order, 2018, which defined <Schedule Commodity= is as under:

¶48

<(hh) <Schedule Commodity= means any commodity specified in the schedule to

¶49

5

¶50

this Order, which is intended to supply by the State Government or by an agency

¶51

appointed by the State Government to any authorized fair price shop for distribution to the cardholders=

¶52

On a perusal of the said definitions, it can be understood that >Government?

¶53

means the Scheduled Commodities? means the commodities which are specified in the Schedule of the Control Order, 2018, which are intended to be supplied by the State Government, i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and as such, Clause 19(f) of the Control Order, 2018 also applies to PDS rice, which is being supplied to the cardholders in the State of

¶54

Andhra Pradesh only. However, the case of the petitioner is that he has purchased 30,992 Kgs of boiled rice from one Harinath Reddy of Sullurpet and kept the same in Sri Tirumala Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Narayanareddypeta of Nellore Mandal, belonging to one Balamurali, for storing the same in the godown.

¶55

As per the Mahazarnama also, it can be observed that the petitioner stored 30,992 Kgs of boiled rice purchased from one Harinath Reddy of Sullurpet and kept the same in Sri Tirumala Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Narayanareddypeta. Admittedly, boiled rice does not fall under the definition of <Scheduled Commodity= as per Clause 2(hh) of the Control Order, 2018, as it is not supplied by the State Government or by an agency appointed by the State Government to any authorized fair price shop for distribution to the cardholders. In such a case, the act of the petitioner transporting boiled rice does not attract the clauses stipulated in the Control Order. As such, seizing the 1192 bags of boiled rice under the cover of Mahazarnama is unsustainable under the Control Order.

¶56

6

¶57

In view of the reasons explained above, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the Mahazarnama dated 28.08.2023, as well as the 6-A proceedings that are pending before the respondent No.2.

¶58

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the Mahazarnama dated 28.08.2023 is set aside, as well as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, which are pending before the respondent No.2, are hereby set aside. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 is directed to release the seized stock, i.e., 1192 bags of boiled rice weighing 26 Kgs each, without imposing any conditions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

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

¶60

____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶61

Date :10.12.2025 MH/JLSR

¶62

7

¶63

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶64

187