Allowed

A.Venkat Reddy, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC15 Mar 2007WP/5253/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the interim disposal order dated 28-2-2007 passed by the 1st respondent regarding seized scheduled commodities under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court set aside the order due to irrelevant reasons and contravention of principles laid down in a previous judgment, allowing the petition at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28-2-2007 set aside; respondent at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

A.Venkat Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 5253 of 2007

¶3

DATED: 15-03-2007

¶4

Between: A.Venkat Reddy …Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others …Respondents.

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶6

W.P.No. 5253 of 2007

¶7

ORAL ORDER:

¶8

The 1^st respondent by the impugned order dated 28-2-2007 directed interim disposal of the seized scheduled commodities belonging to the petitioner, in purported exercise of power and authority under Section 6-A (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶9

On 20-2-2007 the CWC godown, Siddipet was inspected by the Vigilance Wing of the Civil Supplies Department and 200 bags weighing 19.800 M.Ts. of Bengal Gram was found stored thereat. On allegation that the petitioner is pursuing a business in scheduled commodities without having a licence under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short ‘the Distribution order’) and in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the commodities stored were seized after recording a mediators report. The case of the petitioner is that he is a farmer, the scheduled commodities are the produce of his tillage and that he has stored the produce in the godown; that he is not a dealer and he is not required to obtain a licence under the provisions of the Distribution order. These are issues and defences which are more appropriately considered in proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act which have been initiated. However, the petitioner’s grievance that the 1^st respondent has passed an order dated 28-2-2007 in transgression of the provisions of Section 6-A (2) of the Act, merits acceptance. This Court by the judgment dated 27-2-2007 in W.P.No.3761 of

¶10

2007 has set out the principles that invariably must be followed in exercising power and authority under Section 6-A(2) of the Act. The 1^st respondent has merely recorded that the seized commodities are perishable in nature which they are not. In view of the irrelevant reasons recorded and in view of the fact that such reasons are contrary to the law declared in the judgment supra, the impugned order of the 1^st respondent is set aside. The 1^st respondent is however at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly allowed 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

A.Venkat Reddy, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Venkat Reddy, v. The Joint Collector

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

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

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