Disposed

Sri Vasavi Steam and Floor Mill, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Aug 2014WP/24467/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the seizure of stocks and locking of the petitioner's rice mill under the Essential Commodities Act, the High Court directed the respondent authorities to conclude the pending enquiry within eight weeks, refrain from selling seized stocks, and return the Form-B licence.

What did the court decide?

Conclusion of enquiry under Section 6A within eight weeks; non-sale of seized stocks; return of Form-B licence.

Sri Vasavi Steam and Floor Mill, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.24467 of 2014

¶3

Date: 27-08-2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Vasavi Steam and Floor Mill, represented by its Proprietor P. Sankeerthi, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶11

Writ Petition No.24467 of 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not releasing the seized stocks which were seized on 11-08-2014 from the petitioner’s Rice Mill, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the seized stocks and to open the lock and key of the Rice Mill, to enable the petitioner to run the rice mill, by disposing the case under Section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶14

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent inspected the rice mill of the petitioner on 11-08-2014 and seized certain stocks on the ground of violation of Control Orders issued under Section 3 of the Act and the petitioner has not received any

¶15

notice under Section 6 B of the Act from the respondents, but the respondent authorities are taking steps for disposal of the seized stocks. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner unit has not committed any violations and the petitioner unit will be able to substantiate its case in the enquiry under Section 6 A of the Act. He further submits the respondent authorities also seized the Form-B licence of the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶16

4. In the instant case, since the enquiry under Section 6 A of the Act is pending, the 2^nd respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry under section 6 A of the Act within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till conclusion of the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Act, the seized stocks shall not be sold. Since it is stated that the petitioner unit is having valid and subsisting licence, the respondents are also directed to return Form-B licence to the petitioner so as to enable it to run the rice mill.

¶17

5. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶19

Date: 27-08-2014

¶20

Ksn

Sri Vasavi Steam and Floor Mill, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vasavi Steam and Floor Mill, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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.v.Suvarnamma, W/o. v.Yogananda Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

E.Bujji Babu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal

Syed Saleh Mohiuddin Quadri, Vs Dr.Babu Lal

Itc Limited, Vs Government of Telangana

M.S.Agarwal Foundries, (Pvt) Ltd., (S.C. No Mdk 893) Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

C. Mahaboob Nissar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal