sAPHC010006412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 385/2025 Between: Ravikindi Lakshminarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in seizing 184.00Qtls of PDS rice (which was earlier released to the petitioner by the orders of Collector (CS), Prakasam vide orders dt.06.08.2024) along with lorry bearing No.AP16 TW 6324 belongs to the petitioner under cover of Mediatornama, dt.07.11.2024 and further orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.CS1/6A/144/2024, dt.30.12.2024 not considering the request of W.P.No.385 of 2025 Dt:08.01.2025 2 the petitioner for the release of the seized stock and the lorry and directing the Tahsildar, Thallur, Prakasam Distrcit, the 4th respondent herein to dispose the seized stock of 184 Qtls of PDS rice through public auction as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Orders made there under and set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent dt.30.12.2024 and consequently direct the respondents to release the seized stock and the lorry to the petitioner and not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure and pass …” 02. The petitioner was engaged in the rice business. While he was transporting 200 Qtls of rice to Kavali in a lorry bearing No.AP 27 TW 4892, it was illegally seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulavapadu P.S. on 11.06.2015 on suspicion that it was PDS rice. Subsequently, the Collector (CS) of Prakasam District, Ongole, issued an order through proceedings Rc.CS1/6A/163/2015, dated 21.04.2016, confiscating the entire seized stock. Against the said order, Crl.Appeal. No.109/2016 was filed before the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole. The appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 19.04.2017, holding that the petitioner is entitled to receive back the seized stock. Similarly, another quantity of 100 Qtls of rice was seized and the same was also directed to be returned to the petitioner vide orders dated 04.05.2017 in Crl. Appeal No.92 of 2016 on the file of Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole. There upon, proceeding was issued by the Collector (CS) Prakasam District, Ongole, dated 06.08.2024 for release of both the stocks of 200 Qtls and 100 Qtls of rice to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner lifted the said stock, and out of the same, sold 184 Qtls of rice to D. Sudheer Babu of Dommanapalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal who has registered his firm in GST. The petitioner raised a bill No.1, dated 06.11.2024 mentioning that the stock was released from Singarayakonda Godown in W.P.No.385 of 2025 Dt:08.01.2025 3 Rc.CS1/6A/163/2015 and Rc.CS1/6A/208/2015. Copy of the bill was kept in the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TW 6324 in which the rice was loaded for transportation. Again while the commodity was being transported, the same was seized ignoring the bill. As such, the petitioner filed the petition dated 28.11.2024 before the 2nd respondent narrating the entire facts and enclosing the necessary documents. However, without considering the petitioner’s contentions, an order was passed on 30.12.2024, through proceeding Rc.CS1/6A/144/2024, authorizing the disposal of the seized stock through public auction. On the same date, another order was passed by the Joint Collector of Prakasam, refusing to release both the seized stock and the vehicle. As a result, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very case of the petitioner is that the seized rice is PDS rice and it was given to the petitioner by virtue of the above said order. The Collector (CS), Prakasam District erred in rejecting the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that the report of analysis shows that the seized stock is PDS rice and further, the petitioner failed to submit the documents such as (i) original invoice of FRK from a FRK manufacturer/ FRK manufacturer shall have valid FSSAI license/ Registration for food category 99.5 or any revision by FSSAI at the time of FRK manufactured (ii) Food Business Operator (FBO)/ rice miller who is blending FRK with normal rice should have valid FSSAI license (iii) FBO/ rice miller shall have FRK blending unit as per BIS-IS 17854:2022 or amended from time to time (iv) FBO/ rice miller should have valid +F logo endorsement from FSSAI (v) purchased FRK should have certificate of Analysis (CoA) of FRK (vi) CoAs shall have QR code which can be scanned using any QC scanning mobile application (vii) The CoAs of FRK/ Premix of FRK shall have 3 micronutrients i.e., Iron, Folic Acid and Vitamin B12 results as per FSSAI guidelines (viii) CoAs shall have source of Iron which is used in FRK, from whom rice is seized/rice owned by Enforcement Authorities. But, the respondent (petitioner herein) have not produced (i) original Invoice of W.P.No.385 of 2025 Dt:08.01.2025 4 Purchase (ii) valid FSSAI license (iii) document in support of having FRK blending unit as per BIS-IS 17854:2022 or amended from time to time (iv) valid +F logo endorsement from FSSAI and envisaged documents as stipulated by DCSM, APSCSCL, Ongole. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the documents in question are only required if the petitioner claims to have procured kernels from any manufacturer and got his own rice. However, in the present case, the petitioner sought the release of PDS rice that was previously seized. Therefore, there is no need for the petitioner to produce such documents. Despite this, the concerned authority passed the impugned orders solely based on this requirement, without considering any other relevant grounds. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record the written instructions of the 2nd respondent, dated 06.01.2025 and contended that the petitioner failed to produce any way bill and sought time to file the counter-affidavit. 05. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a way bill is no longer required in this case. He further submitted that the seized stock and vehicle be released to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions, such as the furnishing of security. 06. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that if the petitioner challenges the impugned order, time is required to file counter- affidavit, where as if the petitioner is prepared to furnish security for interim custody of the stock and the vehicle, this Court may pass appropriate order. 07. Under these facts and circumstances and upon considering the submissions of both the leaned counsels, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The concerned respondent authority is directed to release the stock of the petitioner on furnishing security of immovable property of self or W.P.No.385 of 2025 Dt:08.01.2025 5 third party equivalent to the value of the seized stock, to the satisfaction of the concerned authority, whereupon the concerned authority shall forthwith intimate the acceptance of the security to the concerned District Registrar/Sub-Registrar for their record purpose. ii. The concerned respondent authority is directed to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TW 6324 to the petitioner on furnishing separately personal or third party immovable property as security equivalent to the value of the seized stock or the vehicle, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of the concerned authority, with a further undertaking that the property secured shall not be alienated or subjected to any charge over the property, pending disposal of proceedings under Section 6-A of the E.C.Act, whereupon the concerned authority shall forthwith intimate the acceptance of the security and the undertaking to the concerned District Registrar or Sub-Registrar concerned for their record purpose. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 08.01.2025 SCH W.P.No.385 of 2025 Dt:08.01.2025 6 342 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 385/2025 Date: 08.01.2025 SCH