APHC010633202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30240/2018 Between: 1. SREE DHANYA LAKSHMI RICE MILL,, DOMMANAPALLI VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR DARISI LAKSHMI DEVI. 1. STATE OF A P REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constituti 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 Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole relating to the judgment dt.25.01.2018 made in CrI.Appeal.No.108/2017 and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Orders made there under and also set aside the order Rc.CS1/6 A/14/2016, dt.29.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.4,26.250/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30240/2018 SREE DHANYA LAKSHMI RICE MILL,, DOMMANAPALLI VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR DARISI LAKSHMI DEVI. AND STATE OF A P REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM ...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 Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole relating to the judgment dt.25.01.2018 made in CrI.Appeal.No.108/2017 and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 rs made there under and also set aside the order Rc.CS1/6 A/14/2016, dt.29.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.4,26.250/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA SREE DHANYA LAKSHMI RICE MILL,, DOMMANAPALLI VILLAGE, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS ...PETITIONER STATE OF A P REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THE COLLECTOR CS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. THE ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM ...RESPONDENT(S): on 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 Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole relating to the judgment dt.25.01.2018 made in CrI.Appeal.No.108/2017 and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 rs made there under and also set aside the order Rc.CS1/6- A/14/2016, dt.29.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.4,26.250/- (open market 2 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 value) which is the cost of seized stock of 170.50 Qtls of raw rice along with interest and 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 pleased to direct the respondents to suspend the judgment dt.25.01.2018 made in CrI.Appeal. No.108/2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole as well as the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.CSI/6A/14/2016, dt.29.10.2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 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 CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) 3 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole relating to the judgment dt: 25.01.2018 made in CrI., Appeal.No.108/2017 and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Orders made there under and also set aside the order Rc.CS1/6-A/14/2016 dt 29.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.4,26,250/- (open market value) which is the cost of seized stock of 170.50 Qtls of raw rice along with interest and to pass such other order or orders….” 2. The petitioner is a trading rice miller, which is registered with VAT registration number w.e.f. 01.01.2014 with TIN No.28660198530. The petitioner is into the business of purchasing paddy from the ryoths and converting the same into rice by milling in his mill and selling the resultant rice in open market. 3. While so, the petitioner had a contract purchase order with CLRK Industries Private Limited for supply of 341 bags of raw rice i.e., 17.500 MTS and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner got loaded rice in the lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 2229 on 06.02.2016. The said consignment was covered by all valid documents i.e., tax invoice No.4, dated 06.02.2016, online way bill issued on 06.02.2016, contract purchase order and VAT registration certificate. While the lorry was proceeding to Peddapuram, it was intercepted on the way at Adusumalli Village, Prakasam District, by the Regional Vigilance 4 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 and Enforcement Officials, Ongole, along with the 3rd respondent on 07.02.2016 at about 5:30 A.M., and the rice bags were seized along with the lorry. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a report before the 2nd respondent under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent clearly explaining that the consignment is covered by valid documents and that it is not PDS rice, as alleged in mediatornama and also filed copies of the documents concerned to the said consignment and requested the 2nd respondent to release the stocks. But, the 2nd respondent refused to release the seized stocks vide his proceedings dated 30.04.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petition No.20010 of 2016, contending that there are no restrictions to transport the rice within the State and that the rice found in the said lorry is not the PDS rice. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader submitted written instructions stating that the seized stocks are disposed of through PDS. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.06.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to complete the entire process of enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 19.08.2016 under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the petitioner, framing charges as against the petitioner. In response to which the petitioner has submitted an explanation stating that the rice in the lorry is not PDS rice and is covered with valid way bill, tax invoice, contract purchase order and VAT registration certificate. But, 5 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 in spite of the same, the 2nd respondent ordered for confiscation of the entire seized stocks of 117.50 quintals of rice or its value in favour of the Government and as well as imposing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty on the owner of the seized lorry by his order dated 29.10.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed criminal appeal No.108 of 2017 under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, wherein, this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide orders dated 25.01.2018, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 29.10.2016, confiscating the entire stock. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that though the Government of Andhra Pradesh has introduced a scheme called ‘custom milling rice’ from KMS 2012- 13 and after introduction of the same no levy is collected from KMS 2013-14. The Government of India has issued a letter dated 27.03.2015 in response to the letter addressed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh with regard to validity of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, stating that with the lapse of Central Order on stock holding limits enabling the States/UTs to fix stock limit, any order issued by States/UTs would also ceased automatically. In pursuance of the same, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a letter vide CCS.Ref.No.P1(3)/1831/2014, dated 09.04.2015 stating that in view of lapse of the GOI S.O.No.3543(E), dated 29.11.2013, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 is not 6 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 applicable in respect of ‘Paddy’ and ‘Rice’ from 01.12.2014. In view of the same, neither the paddy nor the rice is Scheduled Commodity nor there are any restrictions on transport of the same and no license is required to do the business. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 6. The 2nd respondent has filed counter reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner and have stated that, after perusing the documentary evidence and basing on the confession statements given by the driver and lorry that 341 bags of PDS rice stocks were loaded at Nuthalapadu Village of Parchur Mandal and are being transported for its sale at higher rate and also considering the analysis report, wherein, it is confirmed that the rice is PDS rice, the Collector (CS) i.e., the 2nd respondent herein finalized the Section 6-A case on 29.10.2016 with an order, confiscating the entire stock of PDS rice to the Government and lorry owner was also imposed with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was confirmed in criminal appeal No.108 of 2017 vide orders dated 25.01.2018, preferred by the petitioner before the learned Principal Session Judge, Ongole. It is further stated that the fine imposed on the owner of the lorry was remitted to the Government account and the sale proceedings were realized by sale of the seized stock through PDS and the same was also remitted into the Government account. But, however, it is stated that, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the learned Principal Session 7 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 Judge, Ongole, in criminal appeal No.108 of 2017 dated 25.01.2018, the petitioner is at liberty to file criminal revision, as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and as such, requested to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit. 7. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished a copy of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur, dated 03.12.2021 in calendar case No.189 of 2016, wherein, the criminal case filed against the accused Nos.1 to 4, whose names were reflected in the panchanam, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and were acquitted under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, by holding as under: 26. This is a classic case where a clear and categorical il-motives of investigation agency born form record and also bad prosecution. There is no evidence on record fairly showing the arrest of accused No.1 to 4 along with the seizure of lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 2229 with PDS rice bags as alleged by the prosecution. 27.Point No.2: In view of finding given in point No.1, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution failed to being home the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offence leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered. 28. In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and the accused 1 to 4 are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. As per Sec.437 A Cr.P.C the bail bonds of accused and of their sureties shall remain in force 8 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 for 6 (six) months from today. The property in CPR 10 of 2016 i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 2229 which was already taken by A1/owner of lorry shall holds good. 8. If any person is aggrieved by the order of confiscation under Section 6-A of the Act, the aggrieved person can prefer appeal under Section 6-C 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 6-C 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.” 9. As it is the case of the petitioner that after passing of the final orders on 29.10.2016 under Section 6-A of the Act by the District Collector (CS), Prakasam District, accused Nos.1 to 4 whose name were reflected in the panchanama were acquitted in the criminal case were acquitted in the calendar case No.189 of 2016 on 03.12.2021, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act duly enclosing copy of the acquittal order dated 03.12.2021 passed in calendar case No.189 of 2016. 10. 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 9 VS,J W.P.No.30240 of 2018 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 08.09.2025 MDP