Partly allowed

Ibrahim Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2020WP/22013/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the seizure of rice, paddy, and boosa by the Deputy Tahsildar. The bench directed the Joint Collector to release the seized stock against security while the petitioner undertakes enquiry proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to release seized rice and paddy subject to furnishing 25% bank guarantee and 7.5% third party security, pending enquiry under Sections 6(4) and 7 of the Essential Commodit

Ibrahim Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

''^{o'' o,'.31 j3%1,?i} :,ili. ilffi o, o o ro

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENT rwo rn ou!'oln; X-,j[iE^rri,.EA/BER

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶5

WRIT P ETITION NO:22013 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

lbrahim Khan. Sro I,,lLjrn1s7 Ali Khan, Aged about^21 .years, Occ Business, R/o 2_98/3, chiluva Kodur. Grtrrpllij rvi)|.tri"JJgtrar District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telanoana. Rep. by, its,principal Secretary. Civil Supplies Department, Secreiariat. Hyderabad

¶11

2 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad, Nizamabad District

¶12

a The Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District.

¶13

4 The Station House Officer, Nizamabad Rural police Station, Nizamabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the naiure of writ of IVandamus, declaring the seizure of the rice, paddy and boosa containing (22g) bags of different weights of rice quantity (11S.95) quintals and Paddy bags (10) of quantity of (3.60) quintals and Boosa bags (20) quantity of (3.58) quintals by the 3'd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, improper and one without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to release the above said stock.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to release the rice, paddy and boosa containing (228) bags of different weights of rice quantity⁽¹ 18.95) quintals and Paddy bags (10) of^quantity of (3,60) quintals and Boosa bags (20) quantity of (3.58) quintals in favour of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. BHASKAR REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: AGP^FOR CIVIL^SUPPLIES

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Couft made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTTCEA.RAJASHEKERREDDY} Writ P etitio^{nNo.220 13of 2020}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ^{petitionis filed with the followingprayer;}

¶25

,,toissueaWrit,orderordirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenature ofwritofmandamusdeclaringtheseizureoftherice,paddyandboosa containing^{(228) bagsof different weightsof rice quantity(11895)quintals} and^paddy bags^{(10) of quantity of (3 60) quintals and boosa bags (20)} quantity of (3.58)^{quintals by} the^{3'd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and to} issue other appropriate^directions".

¶26

The case of the^{petitioneris that he purchased rice and broken rice} etc., from the rice millers^{and other traders in wholesalefor sellingthe} same to the retailers and^{that when he was transporting the paddy and} boosa in Eicher Van bearing^{No.TS21T 0230, the 3'd respondentseized} the same on the^ground that it is PDS rice and a case^{in Cr.No.292of 2020} was registered under Section 420 IPC and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short^'the Act').

¶27

3 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no restriction of movement of paddy and rice and there is no specification about the PDS commodities either in the Act or in the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order,20'16 (for short'the Control Order).

¶29

5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on written instructions, submits that since there was diversion of PDS rice in contravention of the Control Order, the entire stock was seized under a cover of panchanama and that an interim order was also passed on 05.12.2010 for disposal of the sejzed stock pending enqurry under

¶30

w.p No.z2o13 oi 2o;ed

¶31

¶32

Section 6-4 of the Act and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed,

¶33

6 A perusar of the materiai on record goes to show that proceedings under section 6-4 of the Act were initiated agarnst the petitioner and it is open for the petitioner to raise ail contentions before the competent authority under section 6-4 of the Act. rn view of the same, the writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to rerease the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on condition of his furnishing Bank guarantee to the value of 25% of the seized stock and third party immovable security to the value of 7 So/o of the seized stock, The release of the seized stocks shall be subject to the orders to be passed in the enquiry under Sections 6-4 and 7 of the Act. No order as to costs.

¶34

7 [/liscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall

¶35

stand closed

¶36

SD/. K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶41

The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Nizamabad, Nizamabad District

¶42

The Deputy Tahsildar (CS), Nizamabad Rural, Nizamabad District.

¶43

The Station House Officer, Nizamabad Rural Police Station, Nizamabad

¶44

One CC to Sri. D. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court for the State of Telangana touTl

¶46

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶47

8, Two C.D. Copies

'nh{,

HIGH^COURT

DAIED 151'1212020

1gE S Ia 14:
( o
Y
3" 23 DEC2020
* $'

¶52

ORDER

¶53

WP.No.22013 of 2020

¶54

Disposing of the WP. without costs.

¶55

s\v. \^{cn?'Ie</sup> )V-r* <sup>,1.\n1d}

Ibrahim Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim Khan v. The State of Telangana

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

Ragi Santosh Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Bioimmune Synergies India Private Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sri Venkateshwara Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Vs The State of Telangana

P. Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Pujari Narasimha and 122 others Vs The District Collector and 6 others

M/s Ap Steels Ltd. and Various Companies (in Liqn) Vs No Respondent