Disposed

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC18 Mar 2011WP/6792/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the core petition for declarations of illegality but directed respondents not to sell seized food stocks pending Section 6-A proceedings, ordering a final hearing within six weeks. Associated interim petition disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to sell seized stock pending Section 6-A proceedings; order to complete such proceedings with final order within six weeks.

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu Vs The Collector and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6792 of 2011

¶2

Dated 1 8 th March, 2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Srinivas

¶10

Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the stocks of red gram dal, red gram, green moong dal and red gram husk, worth Rs.51,27,360/- as illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

I have heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶15

A perusal of the record shows that following an inspection of the petitioner’s dal mill on 04.02.2011 by the Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Vinukonda and the Vigilance & Enforcement Officials, Guntur, 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 24.02.2011, has been issued by respondent No.1. Simultaneously, on the same day, respondent No.1 passed order directing interim disposal of the seized stock.

¶16

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations, on which, the stocks have been seized are false

¶17

and that the petitioner is prepared to explain to the satisfaction of 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8448 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

18^th March, 2011

¶23

Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (b/o) VGB

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu v. The Collector and District Magistrate

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

K.Balaswamy, Vs The District Collector

Smt.Sujatha Vs Thirupathi Urban Development Authority

G. Malikarjuna Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, (Civil Supplies), Krishna District

Kagitha Bhanu, Vs The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal

Ippili Krishna Murty [died] Vs Neethubilli Appalaswamy [died]

B. Savitha Vs The Chief Rationing Officer