Telangana High Court
WP/32734/2010 of Kooragayala Mallesham Vs The Collector ( CS ) on 30 December 2010
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32734 of 2010 Between: Kooragayala Mallesham & others. ..... Petitioners AND The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32734 of 2010
Between:
Kooragayala Mallesham & others.
..... Petitioners
AND
The Collector (CS),Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.
.....Respondent
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.32734 of 2010
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not returning the bank guarantee to the petitioners inspite of judgment dated 26.02.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2010,as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for thepetitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.
Certain food grains of the petitioners were the subject matter ofproceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(for short, “the Act”). When the said food grains were sought to be soldin public auction, this Court directed their release, subject to thepetitioners furnishing bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs vide itsorder dated 25.08.2009 in Writ Petition No.17738 of 2009. Subsequent thereto, proceedings under Section 6A of the Act endedagainst the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by therespondent confiscating the seized stock, the petitioners filed CriminalAppeal No.2 of 2010, which was allowed by the aforementionedjudgment of the Sessions Court, Karimnagar and the confiscated foodgrains were directed to be released. After the said judgment, thepetitioners made representations to the respondent for release of bankguarantee. The grievance of the petitioners is that even thoughsubstantial time has elapsed, the respondent has not returned thebank guarantee.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader forCivil Supplies, on instructions, stated that the respondent wascontemplating to question the judgment of the criminal Court byinitiating appropriate proceedings and that no such proceedings havebeen initiated so far.
In my opinion, as a consequence of the petitioners succeeding inthe proceedings under Section 6A, they are entitled to get back thebank guarantee furnished by them during the pendency of Section 6Aproceedings. The respondent cannot withhold the bank guarantee onthe purported ground of contemplation of further proceedings. As morethan eight months had elapsed from the time of disposal of the criminalappeal in favour of the petitioners, interests of justice require thatrespondent shall return the bank guarantee to the petitioners. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to return the bank guarantee tothe petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the mannerindicated above, WPMP.No.41597 of 2010 filed by the petitioners forinterim relief is disposal of as infructuous.
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, JDate: 30.12.2010ES