Telangana High Court
WP/46410/2016 of M/s. Bharath Agro Industries, Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2016
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.46410 OF 2016 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent seized 150 bags of rice on the allegation that they were meant for PDS rice and also seized 200 bags of custom milling rice and seized 4124 quintals of paddy handed over by the 3rd
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.
Arguments
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.46410 OF 2016ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that the 4[th] respondent seized 150 bags of rice on the allegation that they were meant for PDS rice and also seized 200 bags of custom milling rice and seized 4124 quintals of paddy handed over by the 3[rd] respondent for custom milling purpose, though there is no allegation against the paddy seized and it is also stated that the petitioner is not allowed to operate the rice mill. On that the petitioner made a representation to the 2[nd] respondent-Joint Collector on 14-12-2016. But no orders are passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is no allegation against the paddy seized. As such, seizure itself is illegal. Learned counsel also states that he has to mill the paddy and supply rice to the 3[rd] respondent within time bound programme. By virtue of seizure, the petitioner is not in a position to supply the rice after milling the paddy to the 3[rd]respondent.
Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that since most of the Millers are not supplying the rice within time and since the rice is found to be meant for PDS rice, the seizure was affected.
Sri A.Jagan, Learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd]respondent submits that paddy belongs to the 3[rd]respondent and the petitioner has to mill them and supply to the 3[rd] respondent.
It is a case where, there is no allegation of any violations in respect of paddy. It is the case of the petitioner that he has to supply rice to the 3[rd] respondent in time bound programme.
In view of the same, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14-12-2016 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and permit him to mill the paddy and supply the same to the 3[rd]respondent. However, this will be subject to further orders in the enquiry under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J