APHC010605302024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31573/2024 Between: Patalapu Chiranjeevi The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 1 W.P.No.31573 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO: 31573/2024 ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.31573 of 2024 [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P.No.31573 of 2024 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in passing the order-cum-notice, vide Rc.CS1/6A/141/2024, dated 21.12.2024, directing the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.6,85,000/- for releasing the Mahindra Bolero Pick up FB CBC PS 1.7 TXL Good carriage vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and consequently set aside Rc.CS1/6A/ 141/2024, dated 21.12.2024, by allowing the petitioner to furnish 3rd party immovable property security as a surety for releasing the Mahindra Bolero Pick up FB CBC PS 1.7 TXL Good carriage vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448 belonging to petitioner and pass such orders or other orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri M.Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The petitioner is resident of Uttara Bazar, Pernamitta village, S.N. Padu mandal, Prakasam District. He purchased the vehicle 3 BSB, J W.P.No.31573 of 2024 bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448 on Hire Purchase Agreement and eking out his livelihood by plying the said vehicle for transportation of goods. While so, on 06.11.2024, while the petitioner was transporting rice bags, the 3rd respondent had inspected the vehicle and found the rice bags inside the vehicle and concluded that the vehicle was found illegally transporting the PDS rice and the said rice is PDS rice belonging to M/s. Nagaraja Traders and seized the said rice and vehicle under the cover of a panchanama. b. The petitioner filed petition, dated 18.11.2024, before the 2nd respondent seeking direction to release the seized vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB 6448. The 2nd respondent issued order-cum-notice, vide proceedings Rc.CS1/6A/141/2024, dated 21.12.2024, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,85,000/- towards security for releasing the seized vehicle. c. The petitioner is a poor person and eking out his livelihood by running the vehicle. The petitioner purchased the seized vehicle under a Hire Purchase Agreement from private finance and the petitioner and his family are depending upon the income derived from running the vehicle. If the vehicle is not released, his family would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.31573 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition imposed for release of the vehicle is onerous, as the petitioner has to pay monthly instalments to discharge the loan secured to purchase the vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish any immovable property as security, but the petitioner cannot furnish bank guarantee for Rs.6,85,000/- as directed in the impugned order. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed on record written instructions, which are replica of the impugned order. 6. Since the petitioner is unable to get release of the vehicle in spite of passing the order on 21.12.2024, keeping the vehicle idle may damage it further and cause loss to the petitioner. The purpose of imposing the condition for interim custody of the vehicle is to secure the same as and when required by the authorities. The same can be achieved by imposing an alternative condition instead of bank guarantee. 7. In the above circumstances, the condition imposed by the 2nd respondent to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,85,000/- is modified by directing the petitioner to furnish personal or third party’s immovable property for the value of the seized Mahindra Bolero Pick up FB CBC PS 1.7 TXL Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No.AP 39 UB 5 BSB, J W.P.No.31573 of 2024 6448 as security to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Prakasam District, with an undertaking that the person offering security will not alienate or create any charge over the property pending the proceedings under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and on acceptance of such surety, the same shall be forthwith informed by the accepting authority to the concerned District Registrar or the Sub-Registrar for their record purpose. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________ ___ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.20-01-2025 RAR