Disposed

P.Kishan and Sons v. The District Collector

Telangana HC21 Mar 2011WP/7222/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that respondents must not sell seized stock until Section 6-A proceedings conclude. The Collector was directed to complete proceedings and pass a final order within two months. The writ petition and an interim petition were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to sell seized stock; Collector to complete Section 6-A proceedings and pass final order within two months.

P.Kishan and Sons Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7222 of 2011

Date:21.03.2011

Between:

P.Kishan & Sons

..... Petitioner

AND

The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Ganesh Rao Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not releasing the seized stock in favour of the petitioner, pending finalization of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

I have heard Sri S.Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶13

Following an inspection of the petitioner’s business premises by the Deputy Tahsildar, (CAB) (FAC), Nirmal and the Deputy Tahsildar, Sarangapur on 08.03.2011, certain quantities of edible oil, toor dal, green dal, urad dal, Bengal dal (senaga), sugar and rice were seized on the ground that there is variation between the ground stock and stock register. After initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the petitioner made an application on 11.03.2011 for release of the seized commodity. However, respondent No.1 has not passed any order thereon so far.

¶14

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies furnished to the Court the proceedings, dated

¶15

18.03.2011, whereby the Collector, Civil Supplies, Adilabad, directed interim disposal of the seized stock.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client has not been supplied with a copy of the said order.

¶17

Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate in the interests of justice that the respondents do not sell the seized stock till finalization of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Ordered accordingly. The Collector, Civil Supplies, Adilabad, is directed to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pass a final order after following the procedure prescribed under Section 6-A and 6-B of the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9005 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶20

21^st March, 2011 VGB

P.Kishan and Sons v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kishan and Sons 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

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

Chandaluri Ravindra Babu Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

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

P.Srihari Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

Tallapudi Joga Rao, Vs The District Collector

D. Govind Vs The District Collector