Partly allowed

Godavarthi Satyanarayana v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC10 Dec 2012WP/38079/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order for sale of seized commodities, the High Court stayed the sale of stocks pending final inquiry and disposal of claims under the Essential Commodities Act, directing the Collector to conclude the proceedings within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions not to sell seized stocks till final orders are passed; completion of inquiry within six weeks.

Godavarthi Satyanarayana Vs The Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38079 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 10.12.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Godavarthi Satyanarayana & another.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur District & another.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.38079 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order dated 03.11.2012, issued in E.C.Act Case No.293/2012-S7, by the 1^st respondent-Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, for sale of seized stocks.

¶14

The Vigilance and Enforcement officials, Guntur, have inspected the premises of M/s.Mubarak Rice Mill, situated in D.No. 5-1220 of Chandole village in Pittalavanipalem Mandal of Guntur District, on 24.07.2012, and found 910 quintals of paddy, 44 quintals of rice and 147 quintals of blackgram stocks in the mill premises. The 1^st petitioner claims that he is the lessee of the rice mill and the 2^nd petitioner is the claimant, claiming the seized stocks. In the writ petition, it is the case of petitioners that though there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Control order as alleged, respondents are taking steps for disposal of seized stocks.

¶15

With regard to the violations alleged against the petitioners, it is a matter for inquiry under Section 6-A of

¶16

the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the 1^st respondent. But, in this case, it is to be noticed that the seizure was effected as early as on 24.07.2012 and consequent to seizure, further proceedings are already initiated by issuing notices under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act and it is stated that the petitioners have already filed explanation in the said proceedings and the 2^nd petitioner has also filed a claim petition before the 1^st respondent, on which, a report is called for by the 1^st respondent from the 2^nd respondent by issuing proceedings, dated 08.11.2012.

¶17

With regard to the alleged violations, it is a matter for inquiry by the 1^st respondent. As much as notices are already issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, for which, the petitioners have already filed explanation, there is no reason for selling the seized stock at this point of time, having waited from 24.07.2012, and the matter can be disposed of finally, by considering the case of petitioners.

¶18

As explanation is already filed to the notices issued under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act and the claim petition filed by the 2^nd petitioner is also on record, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 1^st respondent to complete the inquiry and pass appropriate final orders in 6-A proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six

¶19

weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and there shall be a further direction to the respondents not to sell the seized stocks till appropriate final orders are passed in the matter.

¶20

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, WPMP.No.48299 of 2012 stands closed.

¶21

_________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10^th December 2012 N.B: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (b/o) ajr

Godavarthi Satyanarayana v. The Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godavarthi Satyanarayana 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

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

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

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