Partly allowed

M/s.Shivani Traders, rep. by its Proprietor v. The District Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Telangana HC13 Mar 2007WP/5001/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed in part. Stayed the Collector's order directing interim disposal of seized pulses. Directed Collector to consider petitioner's plea for interim release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing interim disposal of seized commodities dated 01-03-2007 is invalidated; the first respondent shall not order interim disposal till passing a fresh order.

M/s.Shivani Traders, rep. by its Proprietor Vs The District Collector ( Civil Supplies) — Telangana HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.No.5001 of 2007

¶3

13-03-2007

¶4

Between:M/s. Shivani Traders, Rep., by its Proprietor D. Arun Kumar, Metpalli, Karimnagar district.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Karimnagar district and two others.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶10

W.P.No. 5001of 2007

¶11

Oral order:

¶12

The petitioner’s premises were inspected by the Vigilance Officials of the Civil Supplies Department on 1902-2007 and the scheduled commodities (pulses stored in the premises) were seized under a mediator’s report. On 24-02-2007, the petitioner represented to the first respondent for interim release of the seized commodities to its custody pending finalization of the case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶13

However, on 01-03-2007, the first respondent passed the impugned order directing interim disposal of the seized commodities under Section 6A (2) of the Act.

¶14

The reason recorded by the first respondent is that the sized stocks are essential commodities and would be spoiled, if stored for a longer period. The seized commodities are Red Gram; Black Gram; Green Gram and Bengal Gram and the quantities are specified in the first respondent’s order dated 01-03-2007. These are not commodities, which are per se subject to speedy and natural decay. It is not as though the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act cannot be expeditiously brought to conclusion. The fact that the case against the petitioner initiated under Section 6-A of the Act is not likely to be disposed of for a long period on account of the administrative or structural inefficiency, is not a ground to presume that the commodities would not survive the ravages of time for such long period of time.

¶15

For the aforesaid reason and in the light of the principles enunciated and law declared in the judgment of this Court dated

¶16

27-02-2007 in W.P.No. 3761 of 2007, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission and after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, to the extent of invalidating the first respondent’s proceedings dated 01-03-2007 directing interim disposal of the seized commodities of the petitioner. It is however open to the first respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the provisions of Section 6A (2) of the Act. Till then, the first respondent shall not order

¶17

interim disposal of the seized commodities. It is also open to the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s application dated 24-02-2007 for interim release of the seized commodities in accordance with law. No costs.

¶18

____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶19

Dated:13-03-2007 Pvks/ Nb: Furnish c.c. as soon as possible. B/o pvks/**

M/s.Shivani Traders, rep. by its Proprietor v. The District Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Shivani Traders, rep. by its Proprietor v. The District Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Ananda Lakshmi W/o S. Shanmugam, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Consumer Affairs food

Sri Hanuman Ware House, Near Mg Auto Nagar, Meenapuram Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies), Kadapa

Bhuma Prasanna Lakshmi Dall Producers, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Papineni Chakrapani Vs The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada

Saahil Trading Company, repbyits Proprietor Sri Vs The Collector, Visakhapatnam District

E.Sudhakar Vs The Deputy Tahsildar, (Deputy Mandal Revenue officer)