WP/19909/2016 of Vangaveeti Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Articie 226 of [the]

Constitution of India, seeking the [follou,'ing ][relief:]

".-. to i.ssue an appropiote Wit, Order or [direction,]more partiatlarlg one in tl'Le nature of Wnt [of]Mandamus, to declare the orders of the [2"d]respondent in Case No.CSL/8804/2014 dated27.07.2014 in confi.scot[ng loOok seized [stocks ][of ][t ][he]petitioner as illegol, tmproper, tuithout ong [power ]orauthoitg under lant.t ......"

2. Thc Iearned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lls in this Writ Petition is squarely [covered]by the Judgment of this Court in Sri Sai [Traders,]rep. by its Proprietor and others Vs. AssistantSupply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada and othersl.He lurther submits that the seizure of stocks in [the]present case is prior to introduction of Clause 17 [(e)]of the Telangana State Public Distribution [System]\ zooo 1+1 AL't 7s8

pdge 2 of 4SI(.JWP No.19909 oy ZoiA

(control) order, 2076 (tor short ,the control order),arrd that by the date of seizure, purchase of pDS ricefrom the cardholders is not an offence. He furthersubmits that in Maimuna Begum Vs. The State ofTelangana rep. by its Chief Secretary2, thisCourt held that purchase of pDS rice from thecardholders is not an offence.

3. Learned Government pleader for Civil Supplies,representing the Government pleader submits thatas per clause 17 (e) of the Control Order, any person,who is found to have purchased the rice suppliedthrough hrblic Distribution System either from thecard holders or from the F.p shop dealer or anyother source, is liable for criminal action andimposition of penalty as may be fixed theby competent authority. However, he could not disputethat as on the date of seizure, purchase of pDS rice )\ 2 2Ot6 (s) Ar,T 2So PDS rice from the cardholders is not an offenceentailing confiscation under 6-,4, of the trssentia_lCommodities Act.entailing confiscation under 6-,4, of the trssentia_lCommodities Act.

4. This Court in Maimuna Begum's cq.se (supra

2) held as under:

" A careful reading of Clause 1Z(A) of Andhra prad.esh StatePublic Distibution System (Control) Ord.er, 2008, shot4s thatthe same is attrocted if a fatr pice shop dea[er or cardhoLd.eror anA person causes internlption or interkres with thesmooth distibution of scheduled commod.ities under thepublic distribution sgstem or other Gouemment scllemes atang leuel ight from the Food Corporation of India god_own tothe fair pice slbp point, titl the scheduled commodityreacLLes the intended benert.ciqry. From the unequiuocat plainlanguage of this prouiston, it is cledr that it gets attracteduthen there is intenltption of food grains from the stage ofFCI godown till it reaches the end benefi.ciaryi.e-,cardholders. The prouision does not comprelrcnd. angqctiuitg relating to qng commoditg fauing under tlle ControlOrder, 2O08 once it reaches the cardhold.er. There is noruhisper either in the detention order or in the grounds ofdetention that [qnA ]of the detenus is interrupting tle smoothfuncttoning [of ][the ]scheduled commodities from the FCIgodown point till it reqclles intended. benefi.ciary. On thecontrary, the uhole ollegdtion against the detenus ts tho]ttheg haue been purchasing the pDS ice Jrom thecqrdholders. Therefore, this actiuitg of the detenuscompLeteLg fatLs outside Ctause 17(A) of the Control Ord.er,2OO8. Once there is no prohibition on such actiuttA either Page 4 oJ 4

sriJ

WP No.19909 of 2O16

_.._e:Bffi\ \ _./.t'

under the 1995 Act or under the Control Ord.er, 2OOB whicltundisputedlA is the onlg Order tho.t gouerns distribution qndcontroL of ice meant for public d.istnbution sgstem, thedetetLus cannot be accused of committing anA o.ffence. As therespondents Jatled to shott that the detenus hauecontrauened the prouisions of ang other ControL Orderframed [under ][Section ]3 ofthe 1995 Act, the alleged actruitiesof the detenus are not liable for ang penal action. Once theiractiuittes do not constitute an offence under law, theirpreuentiue detention under the provisions of the 19g0 Actccznnot be sustained".

5. Following the judgment of this Court in

Maimuna Begurn,s case (suprcl 2) and for thereasons alike, this writ petition is a_llowed. No orderas to costs.

6. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall sland el_Sqgd.

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARIASSISTANT RqGISTRAR//rRUE CoPY/' ,k --.._ASSISTANT RqGISTRAR//rRUE CoPY/' ,k --.._

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies TS, TheState of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

District.3. One CC to SRI H.V.R.R. SWAIVIY, Advocate [OPUC]

SWAIVIY, Advocate [OPUC]4. TWO CCS tO GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPIVIENT. HiOhCourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]5. Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State ofTelangana. [OUT]Telangana. [OUT]6. Two CD Copies BNqKKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

WP.No.19909 of 2016

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

Ie29 ,u,b

1HEs14(o23trfl Mt,**jj