Allowed

Merva Venkata Subba Reddy v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC19 Jun 2009WP/11522/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed a writ petition challenging seizure of rice and jowar. Modified the respondent collector's order to permit sale of seized stock through Rythu Bazar Counters before final adjudication under the Essential Commodities Act. Disposed of an interim relief petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Joint Collector directing disposal through PDS was modified to direct sale through Rythu Bazar Counters at rates specified by the State Government.

Merva Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The Joint Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11522 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Merva Venkata Subba Reddy S/o. Chinna Subba Reddy R/o. Govindam palli Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Nidiganti Venkata Subbaiah S/o. Nadipi Kambaiah

¶9

R/o. Govindam palli Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 Basham Venkata Ramana S/o. Chinna Balanna R/o. Beeravolu Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 Basapuram Gaddam Pedda Obulesu S/o. Nadipi Obanna @ Peddana

¶10

R/o. Govindam palli Village, Sirivella Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶11

..... PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Joint Collector, Anantapur.

¶14

2 The Tahsildar, C.K. Palli Mandal, C.K. Palli, Anantapur District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.D.GOWD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioners questioned the seizure of 330 bags (164.15 quintals) of rice meant for public distribution system and 20 bags (9.90 quintals) of jowar.

¶21

The said stock was seized, while the same was being transported in lorry bearing No.AP26 W 6449 on 29.03.2009 at main road near B.C.Colony of C.K.Palli Village. When the petitioners filed an application for release of the seized stock, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 03.06.2009 whereby he directed disposal of the seized stock through Public Distribution System as per the guidelines in force.

¶22

Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are agriculturists and after getting the paddy grown in their fields converted into rice, they were transporting the same to the State of Karnataka and that the consignment was covered by valid waybills and other documents.

¶23

In the interim disposal order, which is impugned in this writ petition, respondent No.1 observed that the consignment was being transported under a false waybill in Form No.10, which pertains to 340 packets of jowar, but the petitioners were transporting rice instead of jowar. In view of these serious allegations on which the consignment was seized, I do not find any error in directing interim disposal of the seized stock, more so, when rice is in acute shortage and it’s prices are skyrocketing.

¶24

However, having regard to the plea of the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioners that the petitioners are genuine agriculturists and if rice is distributed through Public Distribution System, they will suffer huge financial losses in the event of their success in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), I deem it appropriate to modify the order of respondent No.1 by directing sale of the seized stock through Rythu Bazar Counters/Special Counters at the rates specified by the State Government for sale of such rice having regard to its quality. The sale proceeds shall be deposited to the credit of respondent No.1, which shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶27

As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.14828 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶28

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶29

19^th JUNE, 2009.

¶30

kvni

Merva Venkata Subba Reddy v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merva Venkata Subba 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Borusu Satya Krishna Vs The District Collector,East Godavari District at Kakinada

Kotagiri Raja Goud, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Vision Gym and Recreation Club Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad.

Kum. Patchigolla Lalitha Vs The Tahsildar

Bhukya Parishram, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate Collectorate

G. Devanand Vs The Director General of Police