APHC010776432018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37599/2018 Between: Mahalakshmi Rice Traders ...PETITIONER AND State of A P and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS, J WP_37599_2018 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Writ Petition No: 37599 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is 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 Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in seizing 5 Qtls of paddy and 140.5 Qtls of raw rice along with B and A Registers from the petitioner mill on 24.09.2018 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.CS1/6A/111/2018, dt. 06.10.2018 directing disposal of seized stock as illegal arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Orders made there under and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice and unsustainable and consequently direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure and pass…” 2. The petitioner is doing business in food grains. He has taken GVR Rice Mill, situated in Oil Mill Road, Addanki, on lease and started running the business under the name and style of Mahalakshmi Rice Traders. He is conducting milling operations as well as doing trade in rice and other by products of paddy. 3. While the matter being so, on 24.09.2018, at about 1 a.m. Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Ongole, along with the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Podili, i.e. respondent No.4 herein has conducted a surprise inspection over the petitioner's Rice Mill and verified the physical balance with the book balance and seized 5 quintals of paddy and 140.50 quintals of rice available in the mill under the cover of mediatornama alleging that there is excess of 24.5 quintals of rice and also on suspicion that it might be PDS Rice. 3 VS, J WP_37599_2018 4. In the mediatornama it is alleged to have been stated that the mediators, who are also revenue officials are said to have been informed by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Ongole and the 4th respondent, on reliable information, that PDS rice is being transported from the side of Valaparla Village of Martur Mandal, they interrupted Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration No.AP 27 TY 9946, proceeding with the load of 63 bags of PDS rice on sub-channel (Pilla Kaluva) and on enquiring the driver they came to know that the rice is being transported from MLS point of Martur Village to Mahalakshmi Rice Mill and the mill owner transferred the said rice into plastic bags to sell at a higher rate. 5. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he is nowhere concerned with the load in the truck alleged to have been stopped by the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers and the 4th respondent on 24.09.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.09.2018, he purchased 60 quintals of paddy from a farmer namely Makineni Yedukondalu of Govada Village of Addanki Mandal and milled the same on 24.09.2018 and also sold 9 quintals of rice to the consumers on the said date. However, the said transactions were not entered in B - Register by the time of inspection as there is time to record the said transaction till the end of the day. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent along with Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Ongole, inspected the petitioner’s site and illegally seized the available stocks without taking into consideration the above stated facts and filed 6-A case before the Collector, Prakasam District i.e. the 2nd respondent herein. 4 VS, J WP_37599_2018 6. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent vide order Rc.CS1/6A/111/2018, dated 06.10.2018, directed the 3rd respondent to take possession of the seized stock from the custodian and dispose of the same in public auction and remit the sale proceeds into revenue deposits. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent even without waiting for a report from the Tahsildar, i.e. 3rd respondent herein, have erroneously passed the impugned order dated 06.10.2018, directing the Tahsildar to take possession of the seized stocks from the custodian and to dispose of the same, challenging which the present petition is filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the lapse of Government of India Standing Order No.3543(E), dated 29.11.2013, the APSCD (LS & R) Order, 2008, is not applicable in respect of paddy and rice from 01.12.2014 and in view of the same, there is no necessity either to obtain FGL or to maintain the records as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, have no application in respect of paddy and rice, to that extent. As such, neither the 4th respondent nor the 2nd respondent have any authority of law to seize the commodities or to initiate proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as there is no violation of any of the provisions of the law including the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and as the Government is proceeding with 5 VS, J WP_37599_2018 the custom milling paddy and is not accepting any other levy from the miller or trader, there is no necessity for the petitioner to maintain record in respect of the stock available in the mill. 10. When the petition came up for admission on 12.10.2018, this Court has passed the following interim order: “There shall be interim direction as prayed for, subject to the petitioner furnishing personal guarantee equivalent to the value of the subject seized stock to the satisfaction of the 4th respondent by suspending the order of 2nd respondent.” 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government pleader for Civil Supplies. 12. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the District Civil Supplies Officer, Bapatla District, dated 30.08.2025, wherein the facts as stated by the petitioner have been reiterated and it is further stated that the Joint Collector, Prakasam, having examined the petition filed by the petitioner, passed orders, releasing the seized stock of the petitioner, vide proceedings No.CS1/6-A/111/2018, dated 06.11.2018, and thereafter the Deputy Tahsildar Enforcement has handed over the stocks to the petitioner under proper Acknowledgement. 13. It is also stated in the instructions that on formation of New Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the 6-A file relating to Mahalakshmi Rice Traders and Oil Mill was transferred to the Joint Collector, Bapatla, for its adjudication as per the jurisdiction limits. Accordingly, the Collector, Bapatla, 6 VS, J WP_37599_2018 has issued notice to the petitioner calling for hearing on 07.03.2025, but as the petitioner requested to adjourn the matter to another date, the matter has been adjourned and further stated that the Joint Collector would be disposing of the 6-A case pending before him within a period of 15 days. 14. In pursuance of the interim orders dated 12.10.2018, admittedly, the stocks seized from the petitioner’s mill was handed over to the petitioner through proper acknowledgement on 06.11.2018. But, however, on the point as to whether the enquiry under 6-A is to be continued or not, it can be seen that in view of the lapse of GoI S.O.No.3543(E), dated 25.11.2013, the APSCD(LS&R) Order, 2008, is not applicable in respect of paddy and rice from 01.12.2014. Therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to maintain a Register with regard to the stock available in his mill and as such the question of variation in his stock does not arise. 15. Even otherwise, this Court while dealing with similar circumstances, in the case of V. Subba Rao vs. the State of A.P.1, held that the seizure of stocks and initiation of 6-A proceedings is illegal, as rice is no more an essential commodity under the provisions of the E.C. Act w.e.f. 15.02.2002 and the provisions of APSCD (LS&R) Order, 2008, are not applicable in respect of paddy and rice from 01.12.2014. For facility of reference, relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: “…The seizure of stocks and initiation of 6-A proceedings is illegal as rice is no more an essential commodity under the 1 W.P.No.4823of 2020 7 VS, J WP_37599_2018 provisions of the E.C Act w.e.f 15.02.2002 and the provisions of APSCD(LS&R) Order, 2008 is not applicable in respect of paddy and rice from 01.12.2014. This Court, while accepting the contentions of the petitioner has found that the contentions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the 6-A proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as he failed to maintain the records properly and doing illegal business and thereby contravened clause 16 of AP Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 are untenable. Therefore, this Court holds that seizure of the stock and initiation of 6-A proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the seized stock is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the E.C Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.CS1/6A/218/2019, dated 24.12.2019 whereby 6-A case is taken on file against the petitioner is set aside. No order as to costs.” 16. In view of the above, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 06.10.2018, and the 6-A case registered against the petitioner are hereby set aside. This present writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petitioner, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 01.09.2025. SSN