Allowed

Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy, v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC5 Oct 2012WP/31058/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that while rice seized under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 cannot be released pending proceedings, its sale should be stayed as it is not perishable. The detained auto was ordered released subject to a bank guarantee and production of ownership documents.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed not to sell seized non-perishable rice. Seized auto released subject to bank guarantee for Rs.50,000 and ownership documents.

Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy, Vs The Joint… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31058 of 2012 Date: 05.10.2012

¶3

Between: Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy … Petitioner and The Joint Collector, Guntur, Guntur District, and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies.

¶4

The Court made the following :

¶5

Order:

¶6

The petitioner, who is the owner of Auto bearing No.AP 07 TA 8732, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by order dated 14.09.2012 of respondent No.1, wherein he has directed respondent No.2 to dispose of 19 quintals of rice seized while being transported through the abovementioned auto rickshaw.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that he is doing a small commission business, whereby he collects rice from different sources and supplies to the poultry farms, and in that process, 19 quintals of rice along with the abovementioned auto belonging to him were seized by the officials of the Civil Supplies and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated. By order dated 14.09.2012, respondent No.1 directed sale of the seized rice. In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for release of both the seized rice and the auto.

¶8

With regard to the seized rice, I am of the opinion that pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled for release of the same. However, as the rice is not perishable in nature, respondent No.1 is directed not to sell the same till disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶9

With regard to the auto, continued detention of the same will not only cause deterioration in its condition and value, but also financial loss to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.1

¶10

is directed to release the seized auto to the petitioner subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and producing ownership documents. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶11

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶12

As a sequel, WPMP.No.39600 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶13

_____________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 5^th October, 2012 Note: Issue CC by 09.10.2012 B/o v v

Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy, v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lankireddy Venkata Rami 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

G. Narsing Rao Vs Khaja Shaik Ruknuddin Mohammed Farooq Chisti

Ameer Shareef Vs Mohd.Basith Ali

Sri.Yerni Satyanarayana, Vs Smt.Yerni Padmavathi

Y.Adithya, Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar

Roza-e-Hazrath Shazada Vali Vs The Chairman

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational and Development Society, Vs National Council for Teacher Education