Maruprolu Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

WRIT PETITION No.30657 of 2016

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the second respondent in passing the orders on the petitions filed by the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard Sri K.Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.

¶6

A perusal of the record reveals that on 24.08.2016 at about 2:00 PM the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials inspected Sri Vasambika Groundnut Mill situated at Vigilipeta, Chirala Town and found that groundnut seeds and groundnut are stocked without paying necessary taxes to the Government. A perusal of the record further reveals that the Vigilance Officials seized 509 bags (50 kgs each) of groundnut seeds and 700 bags (35 kgs each) of groundnuts from the premises of Sri Vasambika Groundnut Mill. As per the mediators report, the owner of the mill submitted that the stocks belong to different ryots, who are of different villages of Chirala Mandal. On 07.09.2016 the second respondent passed orders directing the third respondent to dispose of the stocks in public auction.

¶7

The petitioners filed five different petitions before the second respondent with a prayer to release the stocks. The predominant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the

¶8

2

¶9

petitioners stocked their groundnut bags in the mill for safe custody.

¶10

The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the stocks seized on 24.08.2016 belong to the rice mill owner and not to the ryots. He further submitted that the rice mill owner setup the petitioners in order to overcome the situation.

¶11

Whether the stocks seized belong to the ryots or the miller is purely a disputed question of fact. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case, the same may cause prejudice to one of the parties to the proceedings. Admittedly the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not implead the Groundnut mill owner as a party in this writ petition.

¶12

At the time of arguments, the only relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents also consented for the same.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, the second respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioners on 29.08.2016 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from today. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby

¶14

3

¶15

directed not to sell the seized stocks in pursuance of the orders of the second respondent in Rc.CS1/6-A/83/2016, dated 07.09.2016. The second respondent is further directed to dispose of the petitions without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶16

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 20.09.2016 Note: Issue CC in three days (B/o) Ivd

Maruprolu Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruprolu Venkateswarlu, 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

Younus Baig Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

M.Balabadra Dass Vs The State of Telangana

G.Kishore, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Srikar Biotech Private Limited, Vs The Director of Agriculture

Fazil Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

D.Ramesh Vs Govind Rao Pophale