WP/27702/2005 of M/s Srinivasa Agencies Vs The Chief Rationing Officer on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the Memo Ref.No.C1/32/95, dated 11.11.2005issued by the respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned GovernmentPleader for Civil Supplies.

The petitioner submits that he is one of the partner of M/s.Srinivasa Agencies, andthe petitioner agency was granted license in the year 1986 to deal with business inedible oil and edible oil seeds in wholesale as well as retail. While so, the Inspectorof Police, VCCS, Hyderabad visited the premises of the petitioner on 30.05.1995and found that there was variation in stocks and accounts were not being properlymaintained, and basing on the said allegations, he has seized the stocks availablein the shop and registered a Crime No.25/V.C.City Team-I/95 and a Case No.32 of19995 was filed under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act before therespondent. Pending disposal of 6-A proceedings, as huge stocks were seized, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12440 of1995 before this Court and this Court by order dated 22.06.1995, disposed of thesaid writ petitioner, observing that since 6-A Enquiry is stated to be pending, it issufficient if a direction is issued to release the seized stock on the petitionerfurnishing a third party immovable security. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished athird party immovable property security vide document No.9025/1991 ofG.Satyanarayana and another in respect of the property situated at block No.4,Sy.No.44, 47 and 48 of Biramalguda village, admeasuring 1203.33 sq.yards and gotreleased the stocks.

It is stated that the respondent passed final orders under Section 6-A of theEssential Commodities Act, confiscating 75% of the seized stocks, vide his order inCase No.32/95 in Crime No.25/VC City/95. As against the said order, the petitionerfiled appeal before the Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies

(IV) Department on 14.03.1995, along with stay application. The appellate authoritygranted stay of the operation of the order of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad,subject to continuing the third party immovable property security furnished by thepetitioner subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad.

It is stated that the petitioner made a representation, requesting the respondent toreturn the document bearing No.9025/1991 by accepting another documentNo.8157/2003 as third party immovable property security, and also furnishedregistered document i.e. Sale Deed dated 29.09.2003, bearing registrationNo.8157/2003. It is stated that though no reason has been stated in the saidrepresentation, but it is stated that the petitioner, in respect of the property in whichthird party security was given, a Reliance retail outlet is sought to be established,and therefore, he wanted to replace the third party security by another immovableproperty.

I am of the opinion that interests of the respondent are only to have sufficient securityfor the value of the seized goods. If the third party security, which is sought to bereplaced is also a genuine and valid immovable property, it is for the respondent tomake necessary verification and satisfy him whether the third party security isgenuine one or not, but there cannot be any objection to replace the genuine thirdparty security in the place of existing security. But the respondent has rejected therepresentation of the petitioner only on the ground that the third party security wasgiven pursuant to the orders of this Court and it is not possible to modify the orders ofthis Court and hence the request of the petitioner for replacing the existing documentwith other form of guarantee cannot be considered. In fact, this Court directed torelease the seized stocks on the petitioner furnishing a third party immovableproperty, therefore, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any objection tosubstitute the third party security subject to verification of the respondent.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned memodated 11.11.2005 issued by the respondent is set aside, and the respondent isdirected to consider the representation of the petitioner in replacing the third partyimmovable property security, if the property, sought to be substituted, is foundgenuine.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

________________

Dated: 28.12.2005

Dsr

Note:

Issue CC in three days

B/o

Dsr

V.ESWARAIAH,J