APHC010605422024 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: 31556/2024 Between: Machanuru Sudheer The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANASURI ESWAR SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 1 W.P No.31556 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: 31556/2024 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: ANASURI ESWAR SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P No.31556 of 2024 [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J W.P No.31556 of 2024 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent issued endorsement dated 28-12-2024 vide Ref.No.I(2)/476/2024 directing the petitioner, i.e., owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16-TE-3219 to produce Bank Guarantee for Rs.6,00,000/- being the cost of seized stock, along with an undertaking that he shall not alienate or alter the vehicle and he shall produce the same as and when required by the Joint Collector, Kadapa as illegal, improper, arbitrary and without any power of authority under law and violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP16-TE- 3219 and the vehicle is being used for transporting rice from one place to another. While so, on 04.12.2024, the 4th respondent/Enforcement 3 BSB, J W.P No.31556 of 2024 Deputy Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, YSR District, had inspected the vehicle bearing No.AP16-TE-3219, at Vijjivemula Veera Reddy College, Mydukur Road, Badvel Mandal, YSR District, on the allegation that the vehicle was found illegally transporting the PDS rice and seized 30,310 kgs of rice. Thereafter, the seized vehicle along with the stock was handed over to the 3rd respondent/The Tahsildar, Proddatur Mandal, YSR District, and in turn, the 3rd respondent handover the vehicle to the 5th respondent/Sub Inspector of Police, Badvel Urban Police Station, Badvel. b. The petitioner filed petition, dated 10.12.2024, before the 2nd respondent/Joint Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Kadapa, YSR District, seeking direction to release the seized vehicle. The 2nd respondent issued endorsement, dated 28.12.2024, vide Ref. No. I(2)/ 476/2024 directing the petitioner to produce bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- being the cost of the seized vehicle along with an undertaking that he shall not alienate or alter the vehicle and he shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the 2nd respondent. c. The petitioner is a poor person and eking out his livelihood by running the vehicle. The petitioner purchased the seized vehicle under hypothecation with private finance and he has to pay Rs.10,000/- every month towards instalments. The petitioner and his family are depending 4 BSB, J W.P No.31556 of 2024 upon the income derived from running the vehicle. If the vehicle is not released, his family would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.; 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.6,00,000/- 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 10.12.2024, 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.6,00,000/- is 5 BSB, J W.P No.31556 of 2024 modified by directing the petitioner to furnish personal or third party’s immovable property for the value of the seized vehicle bearing No.AP16-TE-3219 as security to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent/ Joint Collector, Civil Supplies Department, Kadapa, YSR 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