/ APHC010330922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r ■ /' - V V FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY > TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE H PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16781 OF 2025 ! : / / y tV''' •'Y •t Between: Sri Bandimekala Balaramudu, S/o Obulesu, aged about 56 Business, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Yadiki village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. years, Occ ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Civil Supplies Department, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Tahsildar, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu District Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS action of the respondent authorities seizing the of stock under Mahazarnama dt 18-03-2025 and initiation of order vide RC.K6/142/2025 on dated 02-06-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and without any authority passed by the 2nd respondent to immovable security or personal bond with third part surety consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the seized stock of the petitioner in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized stock of the petitioner with third- party security or personal bond pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: r i j'a r APHC010330922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16781/2025 Between; 1 SRI BANDIMEKALA BALARAMUDU,, S/0 OBULESU, AGED BUSINESS, R/0 AMBEDKAR YADIKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL,’ ananthapuramu district. about 56 YEARS, OCC COLONY ...PETITIONER AND 1 the state of ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES □apartment, secretariat buildings, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. ANDHRA PRADESH. JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ananthapuramu district, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3 the TAHSILDAR, YADIKI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU. ananthapuramu DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4 the station house officer, YADIKI POLICE STATION, ananthapuramu district, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue order or ITS 2.THE 2 TCDSJ W.P.No.16781 of 2025 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS action of the respondent authorities seizing the of stock under Mahazarnama dt 18-03-2025 and initiation Rc.K6/142/2025 on dated 02-06-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and without any authority passed by the 2nd respondent to immovable security or personal bond with third part surety consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the seized stock of the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2025 of order vide Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized stock of the petitioner with third- party security or personal bond pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 TCOS.J W.P. No. 16781 of 202S THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16781 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the 2^^ respondent, whereunder the rice belonging to the petitioner was confiscated by initiating action under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act 1955. It is the case of the respondents that on receipt of credible 2. information that the petitioner is illegally transporting P.D.S rice, on 18.03.2025, at about 3.30 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Yadiki UPS and revenue officials of Yadiki Mandal have secured mediators and conducted raid on petitioner’s rice mill near Peddapeta link road Yadiki village and Mandal and found that a lorry bearing registration No.KA 28 AA 8998 containing 1000 bags each containing 30 kgs of PDS rice labelled as Tulasi Branded Ricd and 175 bags each containing 30 kgs of PDS rice labelled as Gajaraj Evergreen Rice. It is the further case of the respondents that the inspecting officials enquired the driver about the rice, who intrun informed the said officers that the rice belongs to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authorities drawn a mahazarnama on 18.03.2025 and sent a report to the 2'^'^ respondent for initiating action against the petitioner under Section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4 TCDSJ W.P.No.16781 of 2025 Pursuant to the said report, the 2'^'^ respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.04.2025 to the petitioner calling for explanationwithin 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has received the show cause notice, he could not offer any explanation. Thereafter the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 was passed against the petitioner, whereunder the seized stock was confiscated. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Perused the material available on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though a show cause notice was issued to him calling for explanation, he could not offer his explanation. He would further submit that as per Section 6B (1)(c) of essential commodities Act, 1955, no order confiscating any essential commodities shall be made under Section 6-A, unless the owner of such essential commodity is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. He would further submit that while passing impugned order, the 2^^ respondent did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 6 B of the Act. He would further draw the attention of this Court to the 5 df' TCDSJ W.P. No. 16781 of 2025 impugned order and on perusal of the same, nowhere it is stated that such opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioner. 5. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies would submit that admittedly show cause notice dated 16.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit explanation within a period of 15 days. Despite receiving the same, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not choose to offer his objections. He would further submit that in the absence of objections raised by the petitioner there is no need for the 2^^^ respondent to issue notice again calling the petitioner for personal hearing. 6. The arguments advanced by the learned Assistant \ Government Pleader for Civil Supplies cannot be countenanced inasmuch as merely because the petitioner did not offer any objections to the show cause notice, will not disentitle the petitioner to putforth his contention at the time of hearing before the competent authority. Further on a read of Section 6B (1)(c), a duty is cast upon the 2'"'^ respondent to provide an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the goods before passing confiscation order under Section 6A of the Act. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the 2^^ respondent did not issue any notice as provided for under Section 6B (1)(c) of the 6 TCDSJ W.P.No.16781 of 2025 Act, thereby the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard and the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Since the impugned order is passed in violation of provisions of Section 6B (1)(c) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the present writ petition is allowed. It is needless to mention, the 2^^ respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner indicating the date of hearing and thereafter appropriate order in accordance with law. No order as to costs. pass As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO assistant REGIST^ //TRUE COPY// Ion officer To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Joint Collector, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu Pradesh. 3. The Tahsildar, Yadiki Mandal District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies High Court of Andhra 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra 8. Two CD Copies Department, Secretariat District, Andhra Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuramu Pradesh [OUT] Pradesh [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16781 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS