Disposed

D. Syed Waheed v. The District Collector

Telangana HC14 Mar 2011WP/6383/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the seizure of red gram dal stocks worth Rs.18,18,240 as illegal. The Court held that since Section 6-A proceedings were pending, it did not examine merits but directed that the seized stock not be sold and ordered the authorities to complete proceedings within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to sell seized stock pending completion of Section 6-A proceedings; mandate to complete inquiry within six weeks.

D. Syed Waheed Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6383 of 2011

¶2

Dated 1 4 th March, 2011

Between:

D.Syed Waheed

…Petitioner

And

The District Collector, Anantapur and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the stocks of red gram dal and red gram worth Rs.18,18,240/- as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

I have heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶14

A perusal of the record shows that following an inspection of the petitioner’s dal mill on 04.02.2011 by the Inspector (V & E), Anantapur and Tahsildar, Kadiri, a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was sent to respondent No.1 and the entire stock was seized. Show-cause notice, dated 05.03.2011, has been issued by respondent No.1. Simultaneously, on the same day, respondent No.1 passed order directing interim disposal of the seized stock.

¶15

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations, on which, the stocks have been seized are false and that the petitioner is prepared to explain to the satisfaction of

¶16

respondent No.1, if an opportunity is given in this regard in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has neither indulged in illegal business nor violated any conditions of the A.P.State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 and case is foisted.

¶17

After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, I am of the opinion that since the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to render findings on merits. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the magnitude of the stock seized, I am of the opinion that interests of the parties can be balanced by directing that the seized stock shall not be sold, pending completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to sell the seized stock, pending completion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Respondent No.1 is directed to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pass a final order, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7957 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

14^th March, 2011 VGB

D. Syed Waheed v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Syed Waheed v. The District 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

M/s. Dowpati Chinnaiah and Sons, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Gangadhar Goud Vs Chikkela Laxman

D. Ramachandrudu Vs The Joint Collector

Gedela Demudu Vs Madam Venkata Satya Naga Prasada Rao

P. Srinivas Vs The District Collector

Kopisetti Satyanarayana Vs The Secretary, Pidimgoyya Gram Panchayat