‘‘V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI I ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 29790 OF 2024 ▼a O// e ri Between: ' Muthukuri Srinivasulu, S/o. Ramanjaneyulu, aged about 48 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 13/94/2, Kondapet, Banaganapalli town, Nandyal District - 518124. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, AP Secretariat, Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal Disrtict, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Banaganapalli Police Station, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 2 respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 19-04-2023 ordering to confiscate the seized stock of PDS rice to the extent of 300 bags (150 Qtts) and vehicle (lorry) bearing No KA 39 A 0601 to release the same vehicle instead of not accepting the 3rd party security/guarantee/person al bond is illegal arbitrary improper unjust and against to the principals of natural nd justice a and consequently to direct the Respondents to release the vehicle bearing No. KA 39 A 0601 and PDS rice to the extent of 300 bags (150 Qtts) by accepting 3'^'^ party security/guarantee/ personal bond. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 J Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 vehicle bearing No. KA 39 A 0601 and PDS rice bags to an extent of 300 bags (150 Qtts) by accepting 3^*^ party surety/guarantee/personal bond, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. VANGA ANITA 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 .\ 'v / * % APHC010572742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 29790/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Muthukuri Srinivasulu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VANGA ANITA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR HOME 2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief; “...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the 2"'^ respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 ordering to confiscate the seized stock of PDS rice to the extent of 300 bags (150 Qtts) and vehicle (lorry) bearing No.KA 39 A 0601 to release the same vehicle instead of not accepting the 3"'^ party security/guarantee/personal bond is . BSB,J W.P.No.29790 of 2024 illegal, arbitrary improper unjust and against to the principals of natural justice a and consequently to direct the respondents to release the vehicle bearing No.KA 39 A 0601 and PDS rice to the extent of 300 bags(150 Qtts) by accepting 3rd party security/guarantee/ personal bond and pass such other relief or reliefs " 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA 39 A 0601. It was seized on the allegation that PDS rice was being carried in that vehicle. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool in which Crl.M.P.No.164 of 2024 was filed under section 6-C (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to direct the Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal to release the seized vehicle in interim custody pending the disposal of the appeal which was filed against the orders of the Collector (CS), Nandyal in Rc.CS1/13/2023 dated 19.04.2023. 3. After hearing both parties, the Sessions Judge, Kurnool allowed the petition and ordered release of the vehicle towards interim custody on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the satisfaction of that Court with an undertaking that the petitioner would not alter or alienate the vehicle till finalization of the appeal and further undertake that he would not by himself or through others, use the vehicle for any illegal purpose and in the event of repetition of such conduct on his part, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the fact and forfeit the bank guarantee. It was further ordered that the petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by that Court and also that the petitioner shall that the registration certificate, route permits and other statutory prescriptions are complied with, before he utilizes the vehicle. With these conditions the petitioner was ordered to execute the bond. Aggrieved by the conditions, this writ petition was filed. see s 3 BSB,J W. P. No.29790 of 2024 Initially the learned Assistant Government Pleader objected the maintainability of the writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Sessions Court. 4. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner placed a reliance on the decision of this High Court in V.Venugopal and another Vs. the Joint Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor^ wherein it was held as follows:- “The weighty judicial authority leads to irresistible conclusion that where the special statute read with provisions in CrPC provide for remedy of a revision against inferior criminal Court acting either as judicial authority persona designata, a petition for writ of Certiorari is not absolutely barred. If a legislative enactment provides for an appellate remedy and attaches finality, certainly the writ jurisdiction is not barred even if there is a 'no certiorari clause', but special enactment does not attach finality to the appellate order, a revision to the High Court either under the special enactment or under Article 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable. This itself does not exclude the prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. As it was originally enacted Essential Commodities Act provided for an appeal to judicial authority designated by the State Government. This provision was however eclipsed by reason of the amendment in 1981 for a period of fifteen (15) years. During this period, a revision was barred and necessarily certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court was available against appellate orders passed by the State Government under Section 6-C of the Act. After eclipse is removed. Section 6-C of the Act as it originally existed is revived. In this background, assumption of jurisdiction cannot be doubted under Article 226 of Constitution of India even though the remedy of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC is an effective remedy. This Court may now turn to the merits -x - even or ^2010 see Online AP 356 4 BSB,J W.P.No.29790 of 2024 of the case. Therefore, this Court holds that against an order passed by District and Sessions Judge under Section 6-C of the Act, a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution is not barred." In view of the above legal proposition, this Court proceeded to hear the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed to furnish bank guarantee for Rs.5,00,000/-. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that instead of furnishing the bank guarantee the petitioner is ready to furnish immovable property of self or third party to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Kurnool as a security for the release of the said vehicle. 6. The fact that the petitioner is unable to get the release of the vehicle for about two years and even after passing of the order in August 2024 by the Sessions Court indicates the inability of the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee as directed. Even if vehicle is kept idle, it gets deteriorated and the object and purpose of holding the vehicle would also be defeated. Moreover, if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, he would suffer great loss. 7. In these circumstances, the writ petition Is allowed and the condition to furnish bank guarantee in the impugned order is altered to furnish any immovable property as security to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions Judge at Kurnool. The petitioner shall further undertake before the 2 respondent that the condition of the vehicle would not be altered and that the vehicle would not be alienated or transferred to any third party or create any kind of charge/security over it pending the proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. On accepting the third-party immovable property as security, the 2""^ respondent shall inform forthwith the same to the concerned Registrar/Sub Registrar. 8. nd 5 BSB,J W.P. No.29790 of2024 There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEdTrOlTOFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, State of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat, Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The Collector (CS), Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal Disrtict, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Station House Officer, Banaganapalli Police Station, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to M/s. Vanga Anita, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CC’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER g 0 9 JAN 2025 1 ^ . Current Section WP.No.29790 of 2024 Co, ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS