Allowed

Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem v. Sri Nerella Vengaiah

Telangana HC17 Nov 2016WP/21923/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order sets aside an impugned judgment where the District Judge dismissed an appeal against a condemnation of pulses by relying on food grain precedents. Holding the reliance on unrelated decisions as error apparent on the face of the order, the Court remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order of the learned District Judge dated 22.04.2008 holding that the District Collector has no power to seize commodities is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration within si

Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem Vs Sri Nerella Vengaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21923 of 2008

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition was filed by the Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, West Godavari, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2008 dated 22.04.2008 preferred against the order of the District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru dated 08.02.2008.

¶5

Facts of the case are that on 13.02.2007, on receiving credible information with regard to indulging in clandestine business and selling of pulses unauthorisedly by the respondents, a surprise check was conducted in the business premises. The following irregularities were noticed:

¶6

There was variation in ground stock with reference to the entries made in the stock register.

¶7

The authorities have noticed plus variation of Qtls. 83.80 and 21.60 in respect of red gram and black gram, whereas, shortages of 3.50, 29.50 and 11.99 in respect of black gram dal, red gram dal and cow gram respectively as per the details narrated above and thereby violated the conditions 23(i) (ii) (iii), 12 and clause 12 and 13 of the APSCD (L&D) Order, 1982 read with Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, 1955.

¶8

The respondent was indulging in clandestine business by not maintaining the stock books and account books properly and correctly resulting in occurrence of variations in the ground stock, as per the details narrated above and thereby violated the conditions 3(i)(ii)(iii),

¶9

¶10

12 of the Form-B licence and clause 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 read with Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶11

When respondents were asked to submit their explanation, they did not submit satisfactory reply. In those circumstances, the Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem seized ground stock worth Rs.17,25,300/- and filed a case under Section 6-A of the Act.

¶12

The following charges were framed:

¶13

Charge –I: The authorities have noticed plus variation of Qtls. 83.80 and 21.60 in respect of Red gram and Black gram, whereas, shortages of 3.50, 29.50 and 11.99 in respect of black gram dal, red gram dal and cow gram respectively as per the details narrated above and thereby violated the conditions 3(i) (ii) (iii), 12 and clause 12 and 13 of the APSCD (L&D) Order, 1982 read with Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, 1955.

¶14

Charge II: The respondent was indulging in clandestine business by not maintaining the stock books and account books properly and correctly resulting in occurrence of variations in the ground stock, as per the details narrated above and thereby violated the conditions 3(i)(ii)(iii), 12 of the Form-B licence and clause 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers’ (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 read with Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶15

After framing the charges, written explanation was submitted before the Collector denying the charges and stating as follows:

¶16

“The respondents 1 and 2 have further stated that after repealing of the Pulses, Edible Oils storage Control Order, 1977, the business in pulses was exempted from the operation of 1982 Control Order and subsequent to it the Government have issued the circular extending the operation of 1982 control order to the pulses but the concurrence of Government of India was not obtained in this regard so

¶17

¶18

as to bring it in the purview of E.C.Act, 1955, thus the above proceedings are not maintainable; that the respondents would like to rely on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1989 2 ALT pg 1 NRC; that no material collected by complainant authorities with regard to mensrea of the respondents in indulging in clandestine business; that the entire stock found with the respondents was in the athorised godowns which were accessible to the inspecting officers and the books of accounts seized by the authorities clearly establish the fact that he was maintaining the accounts and raising the bills for the stocks sold and purchased; that the respondents relied upon the decisions reported in 1981 APLJ (Criminal) page 357 and 52.

¶19

The respondent has also stated that because of the above case, the stock worth Rs.17,25,30/- was kept idle without moment for the last 10 months and he was suffered more severe than any other punishment prescribed under the Act in similar cases and finally requested to drop all further proceedings in the matter.”

¶20

The District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru, having not been satisfied with the explanation, passed an order confiscating 50% of the seized stock and returning the balance 50% by taking a lenient view by order dated 08.02.2008. Against the said order, the respondents preferred CMA.No.10 of 2008. The learned District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru passed an order allowing the appeal on 22.04.2008 mainly proceeding on the assumption that there is no restriction of paddy and food grains and the District Collector has got power to seize the commodities under Section 6-A of the Act. In the instant case, seized goods are not paddy and foodgrains but pulses. No objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Collector was raised before the District Collector. The

¶21

¶22

District Court, by relying on the decisions reported in M/s.Kundanmal Ramlal v. Ex.Officio Secretary, F&A Dept., Government of A.P., Hyderabad¹ ; V.V.Subba Rao v. Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District at Ongole² and Sri Sai Traders, Vijayawada, Krishna District v. Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada, Krishna District³ , held that the District Collector has no power to seize the commodities. When the said decisions relate to food grains and rice, the District Court should have considered the case on merits in the light of the explanation submitted by the appellantsrespondents before it.

¶23

In view of the error apparent on the face of the order of the lower Court, in relying on unrelated decisions and also not examining the facts of the case, this Court is satisfied that the order of the learned District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru dated 22.04.2008 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for consideration of the case afresh, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶24

The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.

¶25