APHC010383802018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17689/2018 Between: 1. CHIDELLA PAVITRAKUMAR,, S/O. CH. BHEEMESWARARAO, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, KOTHURU VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UNGUTURU P.S., UNGUTURU MANDAL. KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR PDS, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 i. seizing 100 bags of rice each weighing 50 kgs along with TATA EX 909 bearing No. AP 21 X 6214 belonging to the petitioner on 10.05.2018 near Peuipadu Tollgate, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District on National Highwav as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Essential Comscretie.-s Act. 2 VS,J W.P.NO.17689 OF 2018 1955 and the Orders made there under and consequently direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 TATA EX 909 bearing No. AP 21 X 6214 along with 100 bags of rice weighing 50 kgs each seized on 10.05.2018 to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA 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 May be pleased to permit/receive counter copies on record by granting leave to the Respondent in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.NO.17689 OF 2018 ORDER:- The petitioner is doing a transport business and is the owner of the vehicle TATA EX 909 bearing No.AP 21 X 6214. During the course of his business, with a view to supply cheaper variety of rice, the petitioner has purchased 100 bags of rice each weighing 50 kgs from the cardholders belonging to Guntur City and surrounding villages and got it loaded into the said lorry and when it was transporting to Eluru, the 4th respondent along with Inspector of Police Vigilance and Enforcement, Vijayawada stopped the vehicle at about 8:00 A.M on 10.05.2018 near Pottipadu Tollgate, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District on National Highway and seized the vehicle along with rice under the cover of mediatornama alleging that the petitioner has collected and purchased the PDS rice from the cardholders and he was transporting the same illegally and handed over the seized stock to the Deputy Tahsildar, MLS Point Gannavaram for safe custody. With regard to the lorry, it was handed over to SHO, Unguturu, 3rd respondent filed a report on the same day and the same was registered under as case in crime No.96 of 2018. 2. The case of the petitioner is that challenging the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the Central order on stock holding limits is lapsed and that the State Order i.e., A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers(Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 is not applicable to the commodities of paddy and rice. It is further stated that there are no restrictions for transportation of rice with effect from 01.12.2014 and the licensing system is also rescinded and therefore, the 4 VS,J W.P.NO.17689 OF 2018 consignment of rice is treated as free sale commodity and that no case is made out and the seizure is made only for the statistical purpose though there are no irregularities or illegalities. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, on 17.05.2018, this Court passed the following order:- “There shall be interim direction to the respondents to release the seized goods and vehicle subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing personal security to the satisfaction of the concerned respondent-authority.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 17.05.2018, the respondents had released the goods and the vehicle, on the condition of the petitioner furnishing personal security to the satisfaction of the concerned respondent-authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the respondents cannot proceed with the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(in short “the Act”, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him in C.C.No.171 of 2018 dated 18.07.2023. 6. However, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed a counter, reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. It is further 5 VS,J W.P.NO.17689 OF 2018 stated that after following due procedure under the Act, final orders were passed in the Section 6-A proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner by the Collector (CS), Krishna on 20.06.2023 confiscating 100% value of the seized stock and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was imposed as penalty on the vehicle bearing No.AP 21 X 6214 but the petitioner has failed to pay the said amount in pursuance of the confiscation orders passed by the District Collector on 20.06.2023. 7. 7. If any person is aggrieved by the order of confiscation under Section 6A of the Act, the aggrieved person can prefer appeal under Section 6C of the Act within one month from the date of the communication of the order to him. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to Section 6C of the Act, which reads as under: “[6C. Appeal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under section 6A may, within one month from the date of the communication to him of such order, appeal to any judicial authority appointed by the State Government concerned and the judicial authority shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against.” 8. As it is the case of the petitioner that after passing of the final orders on 20.06.2023 under Section 6-A of the Act by the District Collector (CS), Krishna, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case No.171 of 2018 on 18.07.2023, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act duly enclosing copy of the acquittal order dated 18.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.171 of 2018. 6 VS,J W.P.NO.17689 OF 2018 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal under Section 6 (C) of the Act within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. If such appeal is filed, the appellate authority, without raising any objection as to the limitation, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 03.09.2025 LSP 7 VS,J W.P.NO.17689 OF 2018 184 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17689/2018 03.09.2025 LSP