Telangana High Court
WP/20611/2004 of C. Yadaiah, Vs District Collector, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20611 of 2004 Between: C. Yadaiah, S/o. Muthyalu, M/s. Balaji Bajarang
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 20611 of 2004
Between:
C. Yadaiah, S/o. Muthyalu, M/s. Balaji Bajarang Industries (Rice Mill), Amangal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar.
2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
3 Superintendent of Police (Vigilance & Enforcement), Hyderabad Rural, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action ofthe respondents in seizing the rice bags (442 of 50 Kgs. each), broken rice of 20Qtls. and Rice Bran of 20 Qtls. from the premises of the petitioner Rice Mill under thecover of Panchanama dated 15-09-2004 with the allegation that the rice bags forFood for Work Programme are being diverted, is arbitrary and without jurisdictionand direct the respondents to release the entire seized stock mentioned above to thepetitioner forthwith as per the law laid down in 2002 (6) ALT 700.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is a partner of a rice mill at Amangal Village and Mandal,Mahabubnagar District. The 3[rd] respondent is said to have conducted a surpriseinspection of the rice mill on 15-09-2004, on the basis of a statement said to havebeen made by a transport contractor to the effect that rice meant for Food for WorkProgramme, was being transported to the mill of the petitioner. Criminal CaseNo.107 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Amangal,under Sections 406, 409, 418 and 420 I.P.C., read with Section 7 of EssentialCommodities Act. On the basis of this complaint, the stocks of rice, broken rice andbran rice, in the mill were seized on 15-09-2004, under a cover of panchanama. Thepetitioner challenges the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no stock of rice meant for Food forWork, was recovered from the petitioner, and even assuming that the petitioner hasany relation to the same, the question of seizure of the rice, broken rice and branrice, of the petitioner, does not arise. He places reliance upon a judgment of thisCourt in Sheela Srinivas v. District Collector, karimnagar.[1]
Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, on the other hand, submits that theallegation against the petitioner with reference to the quantities of rice, broken rice,bran rice, referred to above, would be decided in the pending proceedings, and therelease of the same is impermissible at this stage.
The basis for the respondents in seizing the various quantities referred to above isthat they found 100 quintals of rice meant for Food for Work, being transported in avehicle AHH 3025. The quantities that were seized from the petitioner are not evenalleged to be those meant for public distribution, or supplied by the Government. TheState and Central Government have revoked all the Control Orders, in relation to thestocking and movement of rice, and as of now there do not exist any restrictions of stocking and movement of rice, paddy, broken rice etc. The F.I.R. No.107, dated 15-09-2004, registered against the petitioner is not the subject matter of this writpetition. In Sheela Srinivas v. District Collector, karimnagar (1 supra), this Courtheld that the seizure of the quantities of rice etc., from a mill or trader isimpermissible in law. Detailed reference was made to the relevant provisions. Theratio of that case clearly applies to the facts of this case.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to release thestock seized from the petitioner forthwith, without imposing any conditions. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
Dt. 29 –12-2004.
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
KO
To
1 District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar.
2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
3 Superintendent of Police (Vigilance & Enforcement), Hyderabad Rural, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Hyderabad.
4 2 CCs to the G.P. For Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT)
6 2 CD copies.