Disposed

K. Sarmas Vali v. The District Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC20 Dec 2012WP/9899/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Supreme Court addressed challenges to a show cause notice and stock seizure under the Essential Commodities Act. The court directed the competent authority to complete Section 6-A proceedings expeditiously and suspended the sale of seized stocks pending the final outcome.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to complete Section 6-A proceedings within three months; stay on sale of seized stocks pending disposal.

K. Sarmas Vali Vs The District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9899 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

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

¶4

Petitioner, a proprietary concern engaged in the business of milling paddy in the name of Taj Modern Tech Rice Mill, filed this Writ Petition, questioning show cause notice, dated 24.11.2009, issued by respondent No.2, under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), vide proceedings in Rc.No.K3/ATP/415/2009, and further, order, dated 10.02.2012, passed by respondent No.1-The District Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur District, vide proceedings in Rc.No.K3/ 415/2009.

¶5

It is the case of petitioner that on 05.05.2009, a team of authorities headed by the Civil Supplies, Deputy Tahsildar, Anantapur, inspected his business premises and on the grounds that there are variations in the stocks when the ground balance is compared with the book balance and the petitioner is doing business without possessing valid license, the available quantity of 391-68 quintals of paddy, 236-50 quintals of rice and 48-96 quintals of broken rice were seized. Consequent to seizure report, the impugned show cause notice, dated

¶6

24.11.2009, was issued by the Joint Collector- respondent No.2 as contemplated under Section 6-B of the Act. Thereafter, the order, dated 10.02.2012, was passed by respondent No.1 for disposal of the seized stock by way of public auction.

¶7

While issuing notice before admission on 09.04.2012, this Court directed the respondents not to sell the seized stocks of petitioner.

¶8

Today, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act are pending before respondent No.1.

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings on the ground that petitioner has applied for grant of food grain license before the District Civil Supplies Office, Collectorate, Anantapur, on 15.12.2008, vide Challan bearing No.45675 and the same was endorsed by the District Civil Supplies Officer on 16.12.2008. Further, it is the case of petitioner that as his application was neither returned nor rejected within a period of one month, he is entitled to do business in view of the benefit conferred under Clause 3(iv) of the A.P. Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008 (for short ‘Regulation, 2008’). Petitioner also disputes the allegation with regard to variations in stock when the ground balance is compared with the book

¶10

balance. It is further stated that on 05.05.2009, he was granted rice mill license.

¶11

Primarily, the confiscation proceedings are initiated on two charges, firstly, un-explained variations in the stocks and secondly, petitioner was doing business without possessing valid license under the provisions of Regulation, 2008. Although, it is the case of petitioner that in view of the deeming provision, he is entitled to do business and there are no variations in the stocks, as alleged by respondents, but it is a matter to be enquired into by respondent No.1-competent authority in the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, which were already initiated. Even before the adjudication by the competent authority under the Act, petitioner is not entitled to seek the invalidation of the impugned show cause notice in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

Inasmuch as this Court has passed interim order on 09.04.2012 directing the respondents not to sell the seized stocks of petitioner and as the show cause notice is already issued under Section 6-B of the Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to complete the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act and pass appropriate final orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no explanation is filed by petitioner as of now to

¶13

the impugned show cause notice, dated 24.11.2009, issued in proceedings vide Rc.No.K3/ATP/415/2009, he is granted four weeks’ time from today for filing his explanation. Further, pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, the respondents are directed not to sell the seized stocks of petitioner. However, it is made clear that if there is any shortage or damage to the seized stock, petitioner is not entitled to make any claim after disposal of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶14

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 20.12.2012 DR

K. Sarmas Vali v. The District Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sarmas Vali v. The District 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

Cases cited

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)

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

Gandhe Ravindar, Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies)