This Writ Petition challenging the seizure of lorry and food grains as illegal was disposed of without granting the relief, as pending applications for release were under consideration by the respondent officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36054 of 2014
Dated:26.11.2014
Between: Mohd. Habeeb, S/o Mohd. Mahaboob and another. ….Petitioners And: The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad and two others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy For Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (Telangana State) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of lorry bearing registration No.AP 29 TA 8430 along with 275 quintals of rice, 440 kgs of sugar, 1,350 kgs of wheat and 70 gunny bags under panchanama, dated 22.11.2014, as illegal and arbitrary.
The premise on which the petitioners filed this Writ Petition is that the respondents have inspected the godown of petitioner No.1 without any reasonable belief and not only seized the stock which was being loaded into the lorry but also the stocks which were lying in the godown.
Sri V.H.V.R.R.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P.Ramachandra Chetty Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Food, Government
of India, New Delhi and other s[1] in support of his submission that the authorised officer has no jurisdiction to enter into the business premises of any trader unless he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (for short ‘the Control Order’) has been or is being committed.
On the facts of this case, the judgment of the Division Bench (supra) will not come to the aid of the petitioners for the reason that as, evident from the panchanama, dated 22.11.2014, initially, the lorry bearing registration No.AP 29 TA 8430 along with 150 bags of rice, admittedly, belonging to petitioner No.1,
was seized as the stock was not supported by valid documents. Following the seizure of the lorry along with 150 bags of rice, which was suspected to be meant for public distribution system, the inspecting officer along with mediators has surprised the godown of petitioner No.1, wherefrom they have seized certain quantities of rice, sugar, wheat and empty gunny bags.
From these facts, it is evident that based on the seizure of rice along with the lorry, the inspecting officer had reason to believe that contravention of the provisions of the Control Order has been or is being committed by the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, the plea of the petitioners that the inspection and seizure of the food grains from the godown of petitioner No.1 is contrary to Clause-11 of the Control Order, has no merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients have filed Objection petition and release application on 24.11.2014 before respondent No.2 seeking release of the seized lorry and the stocks.
Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Telangana State), on instructions, submitted that no such applications have been received by the office of respondent No.2.
Assuming that the petitioners have filed the applications on 24.11.2014, on the same day, they have filed the present Writ Petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the relief claimed in the Writ Petition, at
this stage. However, if respondent No.2 has received the applications of the petitioners either on 24.11.2014 or on subsequent date, he shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that till the disposal of the applications by respondent No.2, the seized stocks shall not be sold.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.45125 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 26th November, 2014 DR
[1] 1978(2) ALT 212
Mohd. Habeeb
The State of Telangana
Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Hyderabad
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
