Disposed

Sri R Raghunath Setty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2023WP/5872/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an order related to an auction of seized rice under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioners, running a rice mill, had their grain seized and auctioned. A Division Bench had previously directed that the auction proceeds be secured and kept with the Deputy Commissioner, subject to the final outcome of the petition. This Si

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner to hold the auction proceeds as per the Division Bench order, subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings.

Sri R Raghunath Setty Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 5872 OF 2022 (GM-EC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI R.RAGHUNATH SETTY S/O SRI RAMAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶9

OCC:PROPRIETOR OF PRS AGRO TECH RICE MILL NO.3072, AC ABDUL ALI ROAD BANGARPET

¶10

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶11

SRI P.C.MANJUNATH S/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: CLERK-PRS AGRO TECH RICE MILL R/AT. AMARAVATHI LAYOUT BANGARPET

¶12

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI B.M.RAMU S/O SRI MADHAVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: CLERK-PRS AGRO TECH RICE MILL R/AT. AMARAVATHI LAYOUT BANGARPET

¶15

KOLAR – 563 114.

¶16

SRI CHINNAPPA S/O SRI THIMMARAYAPPA

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶19

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC:CLERK-PRS AGRO TECH RICE MILL R/AT. AMARAVATHI LAYOUT BANGARPET

¶20

KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶21

SRI MAHESH KUMAR S/O SRI M.SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: INDEPENDENT LORRY OWNER R/T NO 71/2 6^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD RAMA MANDIR ROAD CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶22

SRI VENKATESH M.R., S/O SRI KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC.: INDEPENDENT LORRY OWNER R/AT NO.3/121, KARANOOR MUTHOOR, DANKANIKOTA KRISHNAGIRI TALUK TAMILNADU – 635 107.

¶23

SRI R.PARTHASARATHY S/O SRI P. RAMAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS INDEPENDENT LORRY OWNER R /AT NO 315, 1^ST MAIN ROAD GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶24

SRI RAVI KUAMR S/O SRI BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶25

¶26

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶27

R/AT KURUBARAHALLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 103.

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶32

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COMPETANT AUTHORITY KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101.

¶33

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO 8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶34

SMT.S.LEELAVATHI W/O SRI SRINIVASA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.37/1 1^ST MAIN 8^TH CROSS, J.C.NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT

¶35

¶36

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶37

BENGALURU – 560 006. (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 16/03/2022)

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.03.2022 IN CASE PASSED BY THE R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-S AND ETC.,

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶44

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶45

Issue Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate order quashing the impugned Order dated 04.03.2022 in Case No.ECA/CR/04/2021- 22, passed by the 2nd respondent, as per Annexure - S, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶46

Call for the entire records pertaining to the case No.ECA/CR/04/2021-22 from the 2nd respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶47

Issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order directing the 2nd respondent to release the seized/confiscated item mentioned in the schedule in favour of the 1^st petitioner by taking appropriate indemnity bond from the 1 petitioner to the value of

¶48

¶49

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶50

the confiscated items, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶51

Issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate order directing the 2nd respondent to release the vehicles mentioned in the schedule Item No.2 in favour of the petitioner No.5 to 8 by taking indemnity bond from them for the value of the vehicle assessed by the 2 respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶52

Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary to be grant under circumstances of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶53

Heard Sri Ganapathy Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶54

3. Sans details, brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶55

The first petitioner claims to be the proprietor of PRS Agro Tech Rice Mill and running it close to twenty years now. The issue in the lis is with regard to the proceedings instituted against the petitioners under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short). Pursuant to the proceedings so instituted, the rice that was in the possession of

¶56

¶57

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶58

the petitioners was seized by the authorities and later, sold in

¶59

an auction as it was perishable commodity. Challenging that auction, the petitioners were before this Court in the subject petition and this Court by an order dated 25.03.2022, permitted the respondents to auction the food grains. This was called in question by the petitioners before the Division Bench in W.A.No.344/2022. The Division Bench after consideration of the submissions, passed the following order:

¶60

”9. In the result, we pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The appeal is hereby disposed of by modifying the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.5872/2022.

¶63

(ii) The respondents are directed to ensure that the bid amount of ` 1,07,12,187.60 ps. as per the auction conducted on 13.04.2022 in relation to petition schedule item No.1 – rice is secured and obtained from the bidders/auction purchasers after completing all the formalities as expeditiously as possible.

¶64

(iii) It is directed that only upon the bid amount being deposited/paid by the successful bidders/auction purchasers, the respondents shall release the rice in favour of the successful bidders / auction purchasers.

¶65

¶66

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶67

(iv) It is further directed that the aforesaid bid amount of ` 1,07,12,187.60 ps. deposited by the successful bidders/auction purchasers shall remain with the Deputy Commissioner and that the same would be subject to the final outcome of the petition pending before the learned Single Judge and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶68

(v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶69

(vi) The learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition on merits without being influenced by the directions and observations recorded in the impugned order.

¶70

In terms of the said order, the auction proceeds was directed to be kept before the Deputy Commissioner and same would become subject to the final out come of the petition pending before the learned Single Judge, which is the subject petition.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture would submit that if the order directing the proceeds of the auction to be kept before the Deputy Commissioner is confirmed and made subject to the out come of the enquiry, it would suffice for the present.

¶72

¶73

WP No. 5872 of 2022

¶74

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he has no objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶75

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, I deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner to hold the auction proceeds as was directed by the Division Bench, which shall be subject to the out come of the proceedings initiated under the Act, against the petitioners.

¶76

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition

¶77

stands disposed.

¶78

NVJ

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

Sri R Raghunath Setty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Raghunath Setty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitramala Land and Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Syed Younus Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shwetha M Vs Punith C

C M Mahadevaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

B. v. Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangotri Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Vs State of Karnataka