Quashed

M/s.Survarchala Dall mill rep., by its Prop v. The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle I

Telangana HC15 Mar 2007WP/5126/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An oral order quashed the order of the 3rd respondent directing interim disposal of 197.96 Quintals of Red Gram on allegations of perishability, finding the order inconsistent with law and a prior judgment. The writ petition was disposed of in the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The order directing interim disposal of seized commodities was set aside; the authority is free to pass a fresh order. No order as to costs.

M/s.Survarchala Dall mill rep., by its Prop Vs The… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 5126 of 2007

¶3

DATED: 15-03-2007

¶4

Between: M/s Suvarchala Dall Mill, rep. by its Proprietor G.S.S.Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner and The Asst. Supply Officer, Circle I, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others

¶5

…Respondents.

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶7

W.P.No. 5126 of 2007

¶8

ORAL ORDER:

¶9

197.96 Quintals of Red Gram, assessed to be of a value of Rs.3,95,920/-, was seized from the godown of Central Ware House Corporation, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada on 17-2-2007. The seized scheduled commodities belong to the petitioner. The seizure was on the allegation of contravention of Clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short ‘the Distribution order, 1982’) and violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for pursuing the business in scheduled commodities without a licence under the provisions of the Distribution order, 1982. Proceedings under Section 6 of the Act are under process.

¶10

By an order dated 22-2-2007 the 3^rd respondent in purported exercise of the power under Section 6-A(2) of the Act passed an order directing interim disposal of the seized commodities. The singular reason recorded by the 3^rd respondent is that the seized stock is of perishable nature, which it is not. The order of the 3^rd respondent is clearly inconsistent with the law declared by this Court in the Judgment dated 27-2-2007 in W.P.No.3761 of 2007. For this reason, the impugned order must perish and is accordingly set aside. The 3^rd respondent or the appropriate competent authority however, is at

¶11

liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and the principles spelt out in the Judgment above. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies also. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶13

15-03-2007 Copy as soon as possible GRR

M/s.Survarchala Dall mill rep., by its Prop v. The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Survarchala Dall mill rep., by its Prop v. The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Dr.v.Aruna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

R.Nageswar Rao Vs Chairman Sri Visakha Grammena Bank

Dr.B.Rajagopala Sarma, Vs Director of Collegiate Education

K. Shilpa, Vs Municipal Corporationof Hyderabd

A.Venkat Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

Mr. D. Thirupathy, Vs Sub - Collector, Asifabad