Telangana High Court
WP/40641/2014 of Sri Balaji Enterprises Vs State of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary on 30 December 2014
Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.40641 of 2014 Dated 30.12.2014 Between: Sri Balaji Enterprises …Petitioner And State. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Dept., Secretariat Buildings and 3 others. …Respondents
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.40641 of 2014
Dated 30.12.2014
Between:Sri Balaji Enterprises AndState. of A.P.,Rep. by its Secretary,Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Dept.,Secretariat Buildings and 3 others.
…Petitioner
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP)
The Court 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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizureof 191 bags of paddy weighing 80 kgs each, 251 quintals of rice, 110quintals of broken rice and one quintal of bran from the petitioner- RiceMill, on 29-10-2014, as illegal and the inaction of respondent Nos.2and 3, in passing order on the objections filed by the petitioner, asillegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has sought for a consequentialdirection to the respondents not to take further action in pursuance ofthe seizure and to release the seized stock.
I have heard Mr.V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for thepetitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for CivilSupplies representing the respondents.
The petitioner is a trading rice mill. On 29-10-2014, it wassurprised by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & EnforcementDepartment, Srikakulam, along with his staff and the above-mentionedquantities of stocks were seized on the ground that there werevariations between the stock register and the physical stock. Theinspecting officials also, allegedly, seized the B-Register. TheProprietor of the petitioner has made an application, on 05.11.2014,before respondent No.2 raising objections to the contents of thePanchanama and the seizure made thereunder. He is also stated tohave made a representation to respondent No.3, on 10-11-2014,seeking either to return the B-Register or to certify the enclosed proposed B-Register enabling him to run the rice mill. The grievanceof the petitioner is that neither of the two respondents has passed anyorder.
After hearing both the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of theopinion that as the proceedings following the seizure are stated to bepending before respondent No.2, it is not appropriate for this Court torender any findings on the legality or otherwise of the seizure. However, I am of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought tohave passed appropriate orders on the objections filed by thepetitioner. Since no such orders have been passed, respondent No.2is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 05-11-2014, filed for release of the seized stock and pass appropriate orderthereon, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to thepetitioner’s Proprietor within two weeks from the date of receipt of thisorder. Till then, the seized stock shall not be sold. Within three daysfrom the date of receipt of this order, respondent No.3 is directed torelease the B-Register or certify a fresh B-Register to enable thepetitioner to run the rice mill.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.50942 of 2014, filed by the petitioner forinterim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
30.12.2014 v v
_____________________
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)