APHC010619372022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. NAGASURI RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE SRIRANGANADHAM, AGED 44 YEARS, PROPERTOR RICE INDUSTRIES, TANGUTUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 4. THE ENFORCEMENT D PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 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 topleased to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 37016/2022 NAGASURI RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE SRIRANGANADHAM, AGED 44 YEARS, PROPERTOR- SRI SUBRAHMANYESWARA SWAMY RICE INDUSTRIES, TANGUTUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT THE TAHSILDAR, TANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 topleased to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA NAGASURI RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE SRIRANGANADHAM, AGED SRI SUBRAHMANYESWARA SWAMY ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANDUKUR, THE TAHSILDAR, TANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 topleased to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction 2 of 5th Respondent herein in not implementing the proceedings of 3rd Respondent dt.8-4- 2022 in Rc.C51/6A/194/2015 by releasing seized stock of Rice 90percent in 825.50 Qtls as illegal, arbitrary, high handed in grace violation of proceedings of 3rd Respondent is unjust and consequently direct the 5th Respondent herein to implement the proceedings of 3rd Respondent dt.8-4-2022 in Rc.CS1/6A/194/2015 forthwith to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release 90percent of seized Rice in 825.50 Qtls infavour of petitioner fortwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 pleased to receive additional Documents on behalf of the petitioner in WP.No.37016 of 2022 which is proper and necessary to adjudicate the matter and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri G. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the Respondents. 2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under : “….to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 5th Respondent herein in not implementing the proceedings of 3rd Respondent dt.8-4-2022 in 3 Rc.CS1/6A/194/2015 by releasing seized stock of Rice 90% in 825.50 Qtls as illegal, arbitrary, high handed in grace violation of proceedings of 3rd Respondent is unjust and consequently direct the 5th Respondent herein to implement the proceedings of 3rd Respondent dt.8-4-2022 in Rc.CS1/6A/194/2015 forthwith to the petitioner and pass such other …” 3. On a plain reading of the prayer and the 7th paragraph of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, at the first blush, it would appear to the Court that the main prayer sought by the Writ Petitioner is very reasonable; however, what is projected in the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner is only a tip of the iceberg. The 1st seizure of the stock belonging to the petitioner occurred sometime in the year 2015. On 09.07.2015, the Petitioner’s Rice Mill was inspected by The Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) and seized 825.50 Quintals of Rice in 1651 bags worth of Rs.82,550/-. The said stock was seized on the ground that it is a stock belonging to the Public Distribution System. On 10.07.2015, the Respondent No.4 filed a case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act before the District Collector, Prakasam District and had also addressed a letter to the SHO of Tangutur for initiation of Criminal action against the petitioner. On 16.07.2015, the Writ Petitioner submitted a Representation to the District Collector stating that the rice stock belonging to him was seized in a hasty manner and without counting the bags available in the Mill. On 04.08.2015, the District Collector directed the concerned authorities to submit a factual report. Vide order dated 24.09.2015, the Collector, Prakasam District, issued interim order bearing Proceeding No.6A/194/2015 for disposing of the seized stock of 825.50 Quintals in 1651 bags through public auction. 4 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Collector dated 24.09.2015, the Writ Petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.33436 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 09.10.2015 was pleased to suspend the public auction proceedings of the District Collector. SHO of Tangutur filed Charge Sheet against the petitioner. The learned Mobile JFCM, Ongole had taken cognizance under Sections 3 and 7 of E.C. Act. Vide proceedings dated 19.11.2015, the District Collector had confirmed his earlier order dated 24.09.2015 to dispose of the seized stock belonging to the Writ Petitioner by way of public auction. The Writ Petitioner, had once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.38661 of 2015 challenging the second order of the Collector dated 19.11.2015. Vide order dated 27.11.2015, this Court had once again stayed the sale of stock by public auction. The District Collector had again on 23.11.2016 directed the competent authority to take proper measures to avoid damage to the seized stock till further orders. Similar order was passed on 03.06.2017 by the District Collector. After certain proceedings, the District Collector has passed the final order dated 18.04.2022 for confiscation of 10% of seized stock and to release the balance of 90% of the seized stock to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has once again filed 6-C Appeal before the District Judge, Ongole and obtained order of stay of the order of the District Collector. After the Petitioner obtained an order of stay from the District Judge, Ongole against the order of the District Collector dated 08.04.2022, the Petitioner has once again filed a petition before the Collector (CS) requesting to implement District Collector’s Order dated 08.04.2022 and 5 handover the 90% of the seized rice. Since the request of the Petitioner has not been acceded to, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court once again by way of the instant Writ Petition. As was stated at the very first instance that the 7th paragraph of the writ affidavit do not contain all these details. At the insistence of this Court, the Writ Petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 placing on record additional documents as well as chronological sequence of events. This Court is able to understand the essential facts and decide only from the chronological sequence of events filed by the Writ Petitioner. Analysis: 5. Right from 2015 onwards, whenever the District Collector had passed orders directing the seized stock allegedly belonging to the Writ Petitioner to be disposed of by way of Public Auction, the Writ Petitioner has been approaching this Court by filing Writ Petition after Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.33436 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.38661 of 2015) and had obtained stay of the order of the District Collector directing for disposal of the seized stock of rice by way of Public Auction. That is how the stock could not be disposed of by conducting public auction. When the District Collector once again passed an order on 08.04.2022 (Ex.P1 in the Writ Petition), the Writ Petitioner has once again filed Section 6-C Statutory Appeal before the District Judge and obtained an order of stay of the order of the District Collector dated 08.04.2022 by way of Crl.M.P.No.367 of 2022. After having obtained stay of the order of the Collector dated 08.04.2022 from the District Judge, this Court 6 is unable to countenance as to why the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court and for what purpose. 6. On plain understanding of the most recent facts, it appears that on 08.04.2022, the Collector (CS), Prakasam district passed an order directing the authorities to confiscate only 10% of the seized stock and release 90% of the seized stock (825.50 Quintals) in favour of the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner, instead of receiving the said stock, has once again filed a statutory appeal against the order of the District Collector dated 08.04.2022 and obtained stay of the impugned order dated 08.04.2022. Due to the operation of the stay granted by the District Court, now the respondent authorities are not releasing the 90% of the stock to the Writ Petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that on account of the own-doing of the Writ Petitioner alone that this piquant situation has emerged. If the petitioner is interested in getting 90% of the stock released, he has to approach the District Judge, Ongole, to get the order dated 17.08.2022 modified, instead of filing the present Writ Petition. This Court has perused the order passed by the District Judge in Crl.M.P.No.367 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.65 of 2022 dated 17.08.2022. The operative portion of the District Collector’s order reads as under: “….In the result, this petition is allowed, granting stay of operation of the order passed by the Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole in Rc.CS1/6A/194/2015, dated 08.04.2022 pending disposal of the main appeal, subject to furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of the stocks ordered for confiscation and valued to the satisfaction of Joint Collector (CS). On furnishing such bank guarantee Stocks shall be released.” 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit in as much as the Petitioner cannot seek 7 release of 90% of the stock of seized rice so long as the order passed by the District Judge is subsisting. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Writ Petitioner to avail other remedies as available to him under law, if so advised. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 05.06.2025 BMS