Disposed

Kekkerla Sadanandam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jan 2021WP/24430/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the seizure of rice and a vehicle under the Essential Commodities Act. The Court directed the release of the seized items upon the petitioner furnishing security and a personal bond, subject to pending enforcement proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of seized rice and vehicle on condition of furnishing security of immovable property/Personal Bond and undertaking against alienation, subject to subsequent orders.

Kekkerla Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER^REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 24430 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kekkerla Sadanandam, S/o. Mogili,^{Age 48 years, Occ: Business,} R/o,H.No.5-5, Regonda, Chinnakodipaka^{Village, WarangalDistrict}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{(Civil Supplies} Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Collector, Peddpalli District.

¶14

The Tahasildar, Ramagiri Mandal,^{PeddapalliDistrict.}

¶15

lnspector, Civil Supplies, It/anthani.

¶16

SHO PS, Ramagiri, Dist. Peddpalli.

¶17

...RES'ONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a writ or order more^{particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamus or} any other appropriate writ or order^{or orders declaring the action of the} Respondents in seizing rice^quantity of^{122.50 Qtls. and the vehiclei.e. EICHER} Van Bearing No.AP36Y3915 by illegally^{initiating proceedings undersection 64 of} Essentional commodities Act, as being^{arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violativeof} Articles 14. 16 and 21 of the constitution^{of lndia and againstto the principles of} Natural Justice, abuse of^{processof law, against the rules and without jurisdiction} and consequently direct the^{Respondent to releasetice 122.50Qtls. and the vehicle} i.e. EIcHER Van Bearing No.AP36Y3915^{seizedunder64 proceedings on the file of} Civil Supply lnspector Manthani^{and Peddpalli.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondents herein to^{release the rice 122.50 Qtls.and Eicher Van bearing} No.AP36Y3915 seized by Respondent^{No.4 U/sec.64 of E.C.Act in the interest of} justice, pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. KONDADIAJAYKUMAR}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1& 3: AGP FORCIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.2: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4^{& 5: GP FOR HOME}

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

I ION' BI,Ii SRI .I USI'ICIi A.IIAJASI^{IEKERRI.],DDY}

¶27

Writ Petition No.24430 of²⁰²⁰

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This rvrit petition is flled with the^{tbllorving prayer;}

¶30

"to issue a writ or order^{more panicularlyone in the natureof writ of} mandamus or any other appropriate^{writor order or ordersdeclaringthe action} of the Respondents in^{seizingrice quantity ol 122.50} Qtls.^{and the vehicle i.e.} EICHER Van Bearing No.AP36Y3915^{by illegallyinitiatingproceedings} under section 6-,{ of^{Essential CommoditiesAct, as being arbitrary vindictive} iltegal violative of Articles^{14 16 and 21 of the Constitutionof Indiaand} against to the principles of Natural^{Justice,abuseofprocess of law, against the} rules and without^{jurisdictionand consequentlydirect the Respondentsto} release rice 122.50 Qtls. and^{the vehiclei.e. EICHERVan BearingNo} AP36Y39I5 seized under 6-A^{proceedingson the file of CivilSupply} lnspector, Manthani and Peddpalli."

¶31

The case of the^{petitioneris that he is the owner of EICHER Van} bearing No.AP 36 Y 3915 and^he along^{with some villagers purchased 122.50} quintals ot' rice fiom the villagers of^{Manthani fbr their domesticpurpose} and that while transporling^{the said rice in the subjectvehicle,the Civil} Supply Inspectors ofManthani^{and Peddapalliseized the rice and the vehicle} on the ground that it is^{PDS rice and a caseunder Section 6-A of the} Essential Commodities Act was^registered.

¶32

Heard learned^{counselfor the petitioner and leamedAssistant} Government Pleader^{for Civil Supplies.}

¶33

Learned counsel for^{the petitionersubmits that thele is no restriction} ol movenrent of^{paddy and riceand thereis no specificationaboutthe PDS} commodities either^{in the Act or in the Telangana State Public Distribution} System^{(Control) Order, 2016 (for short 'the Control Order)'}

¶34

2 ARR. J W,P.No.24430 of 2020

¶35

¶36

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 the; matter was placed before the Collector, Civil Supplies and orders ale awaiting and as such. the writ petition is liable to bc d is nr issed.

¶37

¶38

A perusal of the rnaterial on record goes to show that proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated against the petitioner and as such, no purpose will be served by keeping the stock and the vehicle idle.

¶39

In view of the sarne, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 4'h respondent^* Inspector, Civil Supplies, Manthani to release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on condition of his furnishing security of immovable property to the value of the seized stock.

¶40

Furlher, the l5'h respondent - Station House Officer, Ramagiri p.S, Peddapalli District, is directed to release the subject vehicle i.e. EICHER Van bearing No.AP 36 Y 3915 on condition the petitioner fumishing a Personal Bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) or third parly security to the value of the vehicle and also on his furnishing an undertaking that he will not alienate or change the physical f'eatures ol the vehicle. The 5'r' respondent shall also write to the RTA authority not to transfer the vehicle in question on any third pafties narne without clearance from the civil Supplies Department. The release of the seized stock and the vehicle shall be subject to the orders to be passed in the enquiry under Seglions 6-4, and 7 of the Act. No order as to costs.

¶41

¶42

ARR, J W .P .No.24430 o( 2o2o

¶43

Miscellaneous applications, i1'any, pencling in this writ petition. shail

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

To,

¶46

SD/,K.AMMAJI //TRUE COPY// ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR ./ ,8V SECTION OFFICER

¶47

The Station House Officer, pS, Ramagiri, Dist. peddpalli. ?. 9ne^{CC to Sri KondadiAjay} Kumar n"dvocai" topubi 3. Two ccs to GP for civir suppries, High court tor ttie state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶48

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶49

Two ccs to GP for Home, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad. tourl

¶50

Two CD Copies

CHR $F-.\

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410112021

E ST4 r€
it<br>(
q
o
I 18 J$H 2021 o
'J .L
-5'.
*
,^(,

¶55

ORDER

¶56

W.P.No.24430 of²⁰²⁰

¶57

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

k
rb

Kekkerla Sadanandam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kekkerla Sadanandam 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

K.Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Union of India

M/S.Step Up Enterprises Vs M/S.Karvy Renewable Energy Projects Limited

Ace Engineering Academy Vs Mr. Goutham

M/ s. Balaji Infra India Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Rain Commodities Ltd.

G.Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.P.Srikanth Vs M/S. Sree Mahitha Projects Private Limited