Disposed

Nukala Rammohan Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Apr 2015WP/9461/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the seizure of rice stock by a consumer affairs officer, the High Court directed that the seized material not be sold or disposed of during the pendency of pending proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court dismissed the complaint regarding the inspection and seizure based on this directive.

What did the court decide?

The seized stock shall not be disposed off during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Nukala Rammohan Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9461 of 2015

¶3

Date: 06.04.2015

¶4

Between: Nukala Rammohan Krishna, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

.....RESPONDENTS

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.9461 of 2015

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

The petitioner is doing business in rice as a wholesaler and retailer. He

¶13

obtained license bearing No.659/VJA/2010, the same was renewed from time to time and it is valid upto 31.03.2016. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh removed restriction on rice and paddy by issuing G.O.Ms.No.20, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 21.11.2014. But, the Government of India refused to extend the stock limits on rice and paddy.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent, without any power or authority, inspected his business premises, conducted panchanama and seized 338 bags i.e., 84.50 quintals of super fine rice and that based on the report of the second respondent, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.03.2015 directing the Tahsildar, Penamaluru, to dispose off the seized stock by conducting public auction.

¶15

At the hearing, a copy of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 21.11.2014 has been produced before this Court. In the said Government Order, it is stated that the Government of India has issued orders amending the Removal of (Licensing, Requirements, Stock limits and Movement Restrictions) on specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002 extending the validity period of stock limits and license requirements in respect of commodities Pulses, Edible Oils and Edible Oil Seeds for a further period of one year beyond 30.09.2014 and upto 30.09.2015. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) are pending before the Joint Collector, Krishna.

¶16

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the seized stock of the petitioner shall not be disposed off during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, before the Joint Collector, Krishna. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

R.KANTHA RAO,J

Date: 06.04.2015

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.9461 of 2015

¶23

Date: 06.04.2015

¶24

Nukala Rammohan Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nukala Rammohan Krishna v. The State 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

Simma Kasipathi Rao, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M. Narsa Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Essar Power M.P. Limited, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Mudigonda Koteswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ayyallaru Prasanna Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Subhash Naik Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary