Telangana High Court
WP/40577/2014 of Jangala Sadasivudu, Vs The State of Telangana, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40577 of 2014 Dated: 30.12.2014 Between: Jangala Sadasivudu and another. .. Petitioners and The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.40577 of 2014
Dated: 30.12.2014
Between:
Jangala Sadasivudu and another.
.. Petitioners
and
The State of Telangana, represented by itsPrincipal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department,Secretariat, Hyderabadand others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the respondents : GP for Civil Supplies (TG)
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 action ofthe respondents in seeking to sell 650.35 quintals of rice and 8.00quintals of broken rice, seized on 08.11.2013 by the Assistant GrainPurchasing Officer, Warangal in pursuance of order dated 29.09.2014in ECAC.No.227 of 2013 of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners are partners of M/s. Sri Venkata LaxmiNarasimha Traders of Mahabubabad Mandal in Warangal District.They have taken M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Binny Rice Mill of AnantharamVillage, Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal District, on lease. On07.11.2013 and 08.11.2013, the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer,Warangal along with other officials inspected the petitioners’ rice milland seized the above-mentioned quantities of rice and broken rice onthe allegation that they have been dealing in PDS rice. Following thesaid seizure, a case under Section 6-A of the Essential CommoditiesAct, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was registered as ECAC.No.227 of 2013by respondent No.2. After holding enquiry, respondent No.2 haspassed an order on 29.09.2014, confiscating the entire stocks worthRs.9,81,925/-. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filedCriminal Appeal No.111 of 2014, under Section 6-C of the Act, in theCourt of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. Thepetitioners have also filed an application for stay in the said appeal. As the lower Court felt that it has no power to pass an interim order inan appeal under Section 6-C of the Act, the same is stated to have notbeen numbered. In the meantime, apprehending that the confiscatedgoods may be sold by the respondents, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, I am of theopinion that sale of stocks in open market may cause financial loss tothe petitioners. As the goods have been under seizure for more thanone year, their continued detention may also cause deterioration intheir quality and that would not enure to the benefit either to thepetitioners or to the State. The interests of the petitioners as well asthe State could be protected, if the confiscated goods are released tothe petitioners subject to the latter furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt(FDR) for the value of the confiscated goods i.e., Rs.9,81,925/-, whichwould firmly secure the interests of the State. In the event of thepetitioners being unsuccessful in the pending appeal, the State canstraight away recover the value of the confiscated goods by encashingthe FDR.
In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to releasethe confiscated goods to the petitioners, subject to the latter furnishingthe original FDR for a sum of Rs.9,81,925/- within two weeks from thedate of receipt of this order. If the petitioners fail to furnish such receiptwithin the above-stipulated time, the respondents shall be free todispose off the confiscated goods.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.50876 of 2014, filed by the petitionersfor interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J