Disposed

Varanasi Prashanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Mar 2022WP/945/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by a rice trader challenging the seizure of his vehicle and stock by authorities. The Court held that it cannot adjudicate disputed facts of loading. It quashed the seizure order to some extent and directed the Collector to release the seized stock and vehicle within two weeks subject to specific conditions like bank guarantee and vehic

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to release seized stock and vehicle within two weeks subject to bank guarantee and undertaking; order to RTA not to transfer vehicle without clearance.

Varanasi Prashanth Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PE TITION NO: 945 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Varanasi Prashanth, S/o.Kanakaiah, Aged about 26^years, Occ Owner of Eicher Pro 1110 XPH CAB and HSD ABS BSlllBearinq No. TS 02 UB 7886, Rio 11-168 Beda Buda Jangala Colony, Rekurthi, KothapalLi, Karimnagar District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principai Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Collector (Civil Supplies), Warangal District, lntegrated Collectorate, Warangal Drstrict.

¶12

3 The District Civil Supply Officer, Warangal District, lntegrated Collectorate, Warangal District

¶13

4 The Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Hasanparti, O/o District bivil Supply Office, t ntegraGo bottectorai6,' WarangaI Distri"i

¶14

5 The Deputy Tahasildar (Civil Supplies), Hasanparti O/o District Civil Supply Office, lntegrated Collectorate, Warangal District

¶15

6 The Station House Officer, Kakatiya Univercity Campus, Warangal Warangal District

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 direction particularly one in the nature of writ of [\ilandamus declaring the action of the Sth and 6ih respondents in seizing Eicher Pro 11'1 0 XPH CAB and HSD ABS Bslll Bearing No. TS 02 UB 7886 of the petitioner under cover of panchanama dated 29.11.2021 is illegal, improper and without any power or authority under law.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 1 51 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 to release the seized Eicher Pro 1 1 10 XPH CAB and HSD ABS BSlll Bearing No. TS 02 UB 7886 of the Petitioner under cover of^panchanama dated 29.1 1.2021 ,^pending disposal of the Main Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.6: GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEA. ABHISHEK REDDY} WRIT^{PETITION No.945 of 2022}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The^{presentWrit Petition is filecl seeking to declarethe} action of^{respondent Nos'S and 6 in seizing the vehicle bearing} No.TS 02^{UB 7886 of the petitioner under the cover of} panchanama^{dated 29'11'2021' as illegal and arbitrary'}

¶27

Heard.^{Perused the record}

¶28

The case^{ol the petitioner' in brief is that the respondent} No.5 - Deputy^{Tahsildar(Civi1Supplie's)'Hasanparthi'Warangal} District,^{has seized1OOQuintals ol rice as vt'ell as the subject} vehicle on^{the ground that he has purchased PDS rice and} transporting^{the same in the subject vehicle'Aggrievedby the} said action,^{the petitioner has filed thc presentWrit Petition'}

¶29

Learned^{counselfor the petitior-rer has contended that the} rice and^{paddy are not essentialcommodities' Further'there is} no material^{on record to substantiate the allegationmade} against^{the petitioner that the petitioner is transportingPDSrice} in the^{subjectvehicle Therefore'Lhe action of the respondent} authorities^{in seizing the same is not sustainable'}

¶30

¶31

AAR J W.P No 945 o12022

¶32

The learnecl cotlnsel lor the^{pctitionerhas stated ti-rat} therc was no rnentiott^{a};out loadingof the seizcd stock in lhe} subjcct vehiclc, but.^{onlv for the first timc, in the panchantrnla} dated 29. LI.2021,^{il- rs stated that the subject vel'rrclehas beeri} loadcd u,ith the seizccl^{rice. bags.}

¶33

A bare reading of^FIR.No.47 4 ol^{2O2l ofKakatiya} University Campus^{Police Station, as well as the panchanama} dated 29.11.2O21 shorvs that^{the subiect vehicle was presentat} the spot. Further,^{whether the rice was loaded in the subject} vehicie or not is a disputed^{questionof fact, which the authority} can only go into. This Court^{underArticl e226 ofthe} Constitution of India cannoL^{go into the disputed questions.}

¶34

The learned Ciovernment^{Pleaderhas stated that undcr} similar circumstanccs, this Court in^{a batch ol writ petitiol-ls} being W. P.N os.238'26 of 2009 & batch,^{uide orderdated} 30.O4.2021 , placing reiiance upon the^{judgment of the Division} Bench of erstwhile Fligh Court of Andhra^Pradesh in^Elluru Chandra Obul Reddg us, Joint Collector, Kadapal, has^held as under:

¶35

".... the Government of Telangana, in exercise of jurisdiction undcr Section 3 read ivith Sectior.r 5 of the Act ?008 (6) ALT 538 {D.B.)

¶36

¶37

AAR, J W P No.945 ol 2022

¶38

and in terms of the order of the Ministly of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribtrtion, Government of India GSR No.2 I 3 (3) daterl 20.03.2015, and in suppression of Andhra Pradesh Stare Public Distribution S)'stem (Control) Order, 2008, issrterl G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 19.08.20.I6 promulgating Control Order, 2016 rvhere under Clause 17^(e) makes the I)urchase of rice^supplied through PDS either from the card holder or the^F.P. shop dealer or any other source, liablc ior criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fired by the competent authodty. Therefore, the^judgment of the Division^Bench (1 supra), is not application to the cases, where the allegation of purchase of PDS rir:e from the card^holders, is after introduction of Clause l7(e) to Control^Order, 2016, and the said^judgment is applicable only to^the cases, which fall prior to introduction of the^said provision,

¶39

To sum up, it is to be seen that'as held lry the Division Bench {2 supra), 'rice' ar.rd^'piiddy' are^'essential commodities' and thor:gh thcrc^js no requireme!1t^of obtaining licence for doing business in rice ar.rd^padd-v, and there is also no restriction ol ulovement of^'rice'and 'paddy', ptrrchasc of I'DS rice lt-onr the car(l holder^is made an offence ttnder Clause I i^(e) of the Corrtrol^Ortler, 2016. Control Order, 2016 is^promulgated by^the Government of Telangana in exctcise of^{pou'er conferred} under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Act.^{As the} alle€iation against petitioner:s is corltravention^{of CIause} l7(c) of the Control Order,2016,^rnade under^{Section3 of} the Act, the rice is tiable for seizure^{and confiscation} uncler Section 6-A of the Act,^{alterfollowingthe due} procedure, and also liable for criminal action^under Section 7 of the Act, which^{deals with penalties.'}

¶40

¶41

AAR. J W P No 945 o12022

¶42

The lcarned Government has^{also stated that as against} the said order of this Court,^{a reviewpetitionhas been filed, but,} the same has been disrnissed.^{That insofar as Writ Appeal No.65} of 2022 filed against the said order^{in Writ Petition No. i9037 ol} 2O2O is concerned, the Division Bench of^{this Court has} dismissed the said Writ Appeal^{vide judgment dated 15.O2.2022.}

¶43

In view of the above proposition of law laid^{down by this} Court in the^judgment referred to above, the^{cor-rtentionof the} learned counsel for the petitioner that 'paddy'^{and 'rice' are llot} essential commodities is not sustainable.

¶44

l'l:rving regard to tl-re abovc, it is opcn to thc^{pctitioner to} approach respondct'ri No.2 - Collector^{(CS), Warangal District,} seeking rclease ol thc scrzcd stocl< as u,cll as thc serzcd^vehiclc pending enquir.y unclcr Scction 6 A of rhe Esser-rtiarl Commodities Act, 1955.

¶45

Insofar as the request for release of the seized stock in favour ol the petitioner is concerned, respondent No.2 shall pass necessary orders thereon strictly in accordance with law, ets expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks thereof. Till such time the orders are passed, the respondent authorities shall not sell the seized stock.

¶46

¶47

AAR. J W.P.No.945 o12022

¶48

Insofar as the request^{for relearseof the seized vehicieis} concerned, respondent^{No.2 shall release the subject vehicle in} favour of the^{petitionerafter obtaining the valuation certificate} from the Motor^{Vehicle Inspectorconcerned,subject to the} following conditions:

¶49

i) The petitioner^{shall fr:n'rish bankguaranteefor an} amount valued^{by ttrt: i'{otor Vehicle Inspector} concerncd;

¶50

ii) The pctitioner shall^{lr-trnish his undertakingin} ri,riting that he lvill^{rrot zllienate orchange the} pl-rysical features^{of tl-rc sullject vehicle;}

¶51

iii) The petitioner shall^{procir-tce the sr-rbject vehicle} rvhenever required;

¶52

iv) Responcler-rt No.2^{shall r' riLe to the RTA alrthorities} noL to entt,-rtain^{anv i'rpirlicationtotransler tl-re} vr:hicic in question^{()ll irllvtl-rird partl"sname} \,i1hollt clearance^{1i'riir the CivilSupplics} Departn-rent;

¶53