WP/29096/2009 of P.Chandrasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

·

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writof Mandamus to declare the action of the 1[st] respondent inordering confiscation of 30% of seized stock or its value infavour of the Government by proceedings inRc.CS1/6A/116/2009, dated 02.12.2009, as illegal andarbitrary.

·

22. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner isthe fair price shop dealer of Thariparthivaripalem village,Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. On 07.09.2009 the 3[rd]respondent along with 4[th] respondent inspected his shopand found certain irregularities and variation in the stocks ofPDS rice and seized 10.00 quintals of PDS rice under coverof panchanama. Later, he filed a report dated 08.09.2009before the higher authorities under Section 6-A of theEssential Commodities Act, 1955. Basing on the report ofthe 3[rd] respondent, the 2[nd] respondent suspended theauthorisation of the petitioner pending enquiry byproceedings in Rc.G/1660/2009 dated 11.09.2009. Subsequently, the 1[st] respondent issued a notice inRc.CS1/6A/116/2009 dated 19.09.2009 calling upon thepetitioner to show cause as to why the seized stock shouldnot be confiscated in favour of the Government, within sevendays. On the even date, he also ordered that the seizedstock of PDS rice be distributed to the cardholders throughpublic distribution system by the 4[th] respondent and the saleproceeds be remitted into the Revenue Deposits pendingenquiry into 6-A proceedings, as an interim disposal. Inresponse to the show cause notice, the petitioner offeredexplanation denying the allegations made against him.

Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent ordered confiscation of 30%of the seized stock or its value in favour of the Governmentby proceedings in Rc.CS1/6A/116/2009 dated 02.12.2009. The same is questioned in this writ petition.

·

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that thevariation of 5 kgs of AAY rice and 50 kgs of PDS rice is due to weighmentdifference while distributing the commodities and taking delivery of thecommodities from godown. As per Clause 24 of the A.P. PublicDistribution (Control) Order, 2008, 1.5% of variation in the stocks ofessential commodities is permissible. Without considering the said fact,the 3rd respondent seized the available stock of 10.00 quintals of PDSrice and passed the impugned order, which is illegal and in violation ofthe principles of natural justice.

·

4. Having considered the submissions made by thecounsel on either side, this Court is of the consideredopinion that against the order impugned in this writ petition,the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before theDistrict & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Without availing such analternative remedy, the petitioner straight away approachedthis Court and filed the present writ petition. Therefore, thisCourt is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed ofwith a direction to the petitioner.

·

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directingthe petitioner to approach the District & Sessions Judge,Ongole, and file an appeal before him, within a perod of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________________

31[st] December, 2009

lCBS

lGOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA

TAMADA

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

lCBS

l

············

·

·WRIT PETITION No.29096 of 2009·(Disposed of)

31[st] December, 2009