Palukuri Venkata Surya Bangarraju, v. The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Telangana HC10 Dec 2012WP/37724/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging the seizure of Ammonium Sulphate under the Essential Commodities Act, the Court declined to quash the seizure but directed the authorities to complete the inquiry under Section 6-A within six weeks and refrain from disposing of the stocks until then.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to complete the enquiry under Section 6-A within six weeks and not to sell or dispose of the seized stocks until the enquiry is completed.

Palukuri Venkata Surya Bangarraju, Vs The Joint… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37724 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the seizure of 321 bags of Ammonium Sulphate from his business premises by the respondents pursuant to the mediator’s report, dated 22.06.2012, as illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to release the seized stocks to the petitioner forthwith.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioner that he is doing business in fertilizers, under a valid license granted under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). While so, his business premises was inspected by the second respondent on 22.06.2012 and 321 bags of Ammonium Sulphate each weighing 50 kgs were seized under the cover of a panchanama. A perusal of the panchanama indicates that there are allegations against the petitioner that there is unexplained variation of stocks on the ground when compared with the registers. Basing on the panchanama submitted by the inspecting authorities, the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated.

¶5

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. I have perused the copy of the panchanama and also other material placed before this Court by the learned

¶6

Government Pleader pertaining to the seizure of the said stocks.

¶7

As regards the allegations made against the petitioner, it is a matter for enquiry by the first respondentcompetent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. Nevertheless, it is to be noticed that no notice was served on the petitioner as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act.

¶8

When the matter came up on earlier occasion i.e., on 07.12.2012, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies to obtain instructions as to why so much delay occurred in initiating the proceedings by the respondents. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader that the second respondent has already submitted a report to the first respondent, but still, no proceedings are initiated under Section 6-A of the Act. Under the Scheme of the Act, when the stocks are seized on the ground that the licensee has violated the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, the respondents are obligated to initiate the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act without any delay after the seizure. In this case, it is to be noticed that the seizure was affected on 22.06.2012. It is not disputed that even by this time, the show cause notice was not served on the petitioner as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act. Such a delayed practice by the respondents is to be avoided. In view of the allegations made against the

¶9

petitioner, while this Court declines to interfere with the seizure, but at the same time, deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent to complete the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the enquiry is completed and appropriate orders are passed therein, the respondents are directed not to sell or dispose of the seized stocks of the petitioner.

¶10

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

__________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶12

10^th December 2012 DR

Palukuri Venkata Surya Bangarraju, v. The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palukuri Venkata Surya Bangarraju, v. The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

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

Smt.B.Chennamma Vs The District Collector,(Civil Supplies)

S.Suryanarayana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rep. by its President, Sri India Subbarao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Thirupathi Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Vc and MD

Godavarthi Satyanarayana Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Smt.P.Sasi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector (Cs)