Disposed

Gandhe Ravindar, v. The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)

Telangana HC20 Dec 2012WP/39167/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the disposal of seized agricultural stock. It directed the Joint Collector to complete licensing proceedings under Section 6-A within six weeks and refrain from selling the stock until final orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to complete proceedings under Section 6-A within six weeks and not sell seized stock till final orders.

Gandhe Ravindar, Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.39167 of 2012 ORDER:

¶2

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents.

¶3

In this Writ Petition, petitioners have questioned the order, dated 11.12.2012, in ECAC.No.193 of 2012 issued in proceedings No.F1/1923/2012, by which respondent No.1-Joint Collector in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) directed for disposal of the seized stock belonging to petitioners.

¶4

Petitioners claimed that they are agriculturists, possessing agricultural lands, and the seized stock is their agricultural produce. On 30.11.2012, the house of petitioner No.1 was inspected by the officials and on the ground that petitioners are doing business in pulses and paddy without possessing valid license and without maintaining any bills, the entire stock i.e., 127.20 quintals of Red gram, 4.50 quintals of Doddu rice, 78 quintals of BPT Variety paddy and 55 quintals of Doddu variety paddy, was seized. Consequent to seizure and seizure report submitted by the inspecting officers, respondent No.1-Joint Collector has issued notice, dated 11.12.2012, in proceedings No.F1/1923/2012, as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act, inviting explanation from petitioners

¶5

to show cause as to why the entire seized stock should not be confiscated. On the same day, the impugned order is passed by respondent No.1 in proceedings No.F1/19123/2012, for disposal of the entire seized stock pending confiscation proceedings.

¶6

It is the case of petitioners that they have already approached respondents for release of seized stock along with the material to show that seized stock is their agricultural produce.

¶7

Whether petitioners have violated the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 or not, is a matter which is to be enquired into by respondent No.1, who is the competent authority under Section 6-A of the Act. As it is the case of petitioners that the seized stock is their agricultural produce and inasmuch as the notice under Section 6-B of the Act is already issued by respondent No.1-Joint Collector in the confiscation proceedings, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.1 to complete the proceedings 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. The respondents are further directed to not to sell the seized stock of petitioners till appropriate final orders are passed in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act. Further, it is made clear that if there is any

¶8

shortage or damage to the seized stock, the petitioners are not entitled to make any claim after disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶9

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

__________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 20^th December 2012 DR

Gandhe Ravindar, v. The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandhe Ravindar, 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

B. Manjula, Vs The District Collector -cum- District Level Authority

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs The Chief Secretary

G. Hariprasad, Vs The District Collector

Ananthula Purushotham, Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)

K. Sarmas Vali Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

M/s. Sri Raghavendra Saw Mill, Vs The Conservator of Forests