APHC010639882023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32905/2023 Between: 1. SRI MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS,, D.N0.16/4-B-4-9A, SOUTH RAJUPALEM ROAD, CHINTHAREDDY PALEM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CH. MADHU. 2. MEHABOOB PASHA,, S/O ABDUL KHADAR, AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF LORRY, D.NO.L 1-78, RANGAPURAMSTREET, NEWPET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, . REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, BANGARUPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in seizing 540 bags of boiled rice weighing 50 kgs each along with lorry . bearing No. AP 39 UN 7869 under cover of Panchanama, dt. 19.10.2023 and further Endorsements of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein, in ROC.E4/223/2023, dt. 14.12.2023 directing the 3 respondent to dispose of the seized stock in public auction and further directing the 2nd petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to release the seized vehicle respectively as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under and set aside the same and direct the respondents to release the seized stock to the 1st petitioner and the lorry to the 2nd petitioner and not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 540 bags of boiled rice weighing 50 kgs each to the petitioner and the lorry bearing No. AP 39 UN 7869 to the 2nd petitioner forthwith by suspending the Endorsements Roc.E4/223/2023, dt. 14.12.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 3 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 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 the 4th respondent in seizing 540 bags of boiled rice weighing 50 kgs each along with lorry bearing No. AP 39 UN 7869 under cover of Panchanama, dt. 19.10.2023 and further Endorsements of the Collector (Civil Supplies), Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein, in ROC.E4/223/2023, dt. 14.12.2023 directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the seized stock in public auction and further directing the 2nd petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to release the seized vehicle respectively as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under and set aside the same and direct the respondents to release the seized stock to the 1st petitioner and the lorry to the 2nd petitioner and not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure....” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is a trader doing business in food grains in the name and style of Sri Mahalakshmi Traders situated at South Rajupalem Road, Chinthareddy Palem, SPSR Nellore District with a valid GSTIN No.37AQXPC8651Q1ZQ. While so, during the course of business, the 1st petitioner has received an order from a dealer, namely M/s.Nagesh Enterprises, Tykal Road, Bangarpet, Kolar District, Karnataka State for a consignment of 540 bags of boiled rice weighing 50 Kgs each. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner raised a 5 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 bill of supply vide invoice No.MT/23-24/077, dated 18.10.2023 and engaged a lorry bearing No.AP 39 UN 7869 belonging to the 2nd petitioner, and loaded the said 540 bags of boiled rice therein. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner generated the online e-way bill and handed over the same to the driver of the lorry with instructions to deliver the consignment at the above-mentioned address at Bangarpet, Karnataka State. 3. While the aforesaid lorry was proceeding to Karnataka State, the Vigilance and Enforcement officers along with 4th respondent had intercepted the lorry on 19.10.2023 at the Highway near Mahasamudram Tool Plaza, Mettapalli Village, Bagarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District. Although the driver produced the invoice and e-way bill and explained that the boiled rice was being transported from Nellore to Karnataka State, the 4th respondent and the Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, in a high-handed manner, seized the said stock. Thereafter, a 6-A case was registered against the petitioners. The 1st petitioner filed a petition on 30.10.2023 before the 2nd respondent seeking release of the seized stock and lorry. However, without considering the said petition, the 2nd respondent issued two endorsements bearing the same number and date, i.e., 6 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 Roc.E4/223/2023 dated 14.12.2023. By one endorsement, the 2nd respondent ordered confiscation of the seized stock to the Government and directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the same through public auction. By the other endorsement, the 2nd petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the Collector (CS), Chittoor, SBI A/c.No.30808169376 to release the seized vehicle. Aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsements, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause 19(f) of the Control Order, 2018, and the same is extracted hereunder:- “19(f) Purchase of rice supplies/intended for supply through Public Distribution System either from the cardholder or from the fair price shop dealer or any middle man or other source. Otherwise, such fair price shop dealer or middle man or other person involved shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority.” The definition of “Government” under Clause 2(y) of the Control Order, 2018, reads as under: “2(y) “Government” means the Government of Andhra Pradesh.” Clause 2(hh) of the Control Order, 2018, which defined “Schedule Commodity” is under: 7 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 (hh) “Schedule Commodity” means any commodity specified in the schedule to this Order, which is intended to supply by the State Government or by an agency appointed by the State Government to any authorized fair price shop for distribution to the cardholders”. 5. On a perusal of the aforesaid definitions, it can be understood that „Government‟ means the “State Government” and the „Schedule Commodities‟ means the commodities which are specified in the schedule of Control Order, 2018 which are intended to supply by the State Government i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh and as such, the clause under 19(f) of the Control Order, 2018 also applies to the PDS rice, which is being supplied to the cardholders in the State Government of Andhra Pradesh only. But however, the case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is doing business in food grains and in course of such business, raised Invoice No.MT/23-24/077 dated 18.10.2023 in the Name of M/s.Nagesh Enterprises, generated e- way bill, and loaded the stock into a lorry bearing No. AP 39 UN 7869 which belongs to the 2nd petitioner. The invoice and e-way bill were duly handed over to the driver of the lorry for transportation. 6. As per the panchanama also, it can be observed that the petitioner No.2 was carrying 540 bags boiled rice in his lorry but 8 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 not PDS rice. Admittedly, boiled rice does not fall under the definition of “Schedule Commodity” as per Clause 2(hh) of the Control Order, 2018, as it is not supplied by the State Government or by any agency appointed by the State Government to any authorized fair price shops for distribution to cardholders, In such a case, the act of the petitioner transporting boiled rice does not attract the clauses stipulated in Control Order. As such, the report by the 3rd respondent under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and thereafter issuance of the impugned endorsement, dated 14.12.2023, is unsustainable under the Control Order. 7. It is also to be noted that, in the present case, the petitioners have already been acquitted in the criminal case filed against them, vide judgment dated 11.07.2025 in C.C. No. 1925 of 2023, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. 8. In M/s.Sandeep Industries v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 SCC OnLine Raj 269, wherein it is inter alia held as follows: “14. No doubt, Section 6A and 6C speak about acquittal of the accused of the charge of contravening an order in respect of which confiscation proceedings are initiated for the return of the seized 9 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 essential commodity or payment of the price therefor. The expression „acquittal‟ indicates termination of criminal prosecution against the accused and the effect of acquittal is that the offence is not committed by him. In fact, it means a judicial discharge from an accusation. The effect of acquittal under Section 7 of the Act is that the order made under Section 3 of the Act is not contravened by the accused. The logic behind the return of the seized goods or payment of price therefor on acquittal of the accused is that contravention of the order made under Section 3 of the Act, which is also a condition precedent for confiscation has not been committed by him. On the same analogy, if the accused is discharged from accusation made under the Act in criminal prosecution with categorical finding that no order, made under Section 3 of the Act, is contravened or violated by him, it shall have the same effect as that of an acquittal for the purpose of confiscation proceedings or passing an order to confiscate the seized goods. After a finding that no Order made under the Act has been violated or contravened by the accused, the basis for continuation of confiscation proceedings or for passing an order of confiscation of the seized goods disappears and the very jurisdiction of the concerned authorities to proceed with confiscation proceedings comes to an end. In case where confiscation of the goods has been ordered under Section 6A, the appellate authority is also under statutory obligation to return the seized goods to the owner or the value therefor. This interpretation will promote justice and effectuate the object behind the statute which requires violation or contravention of an Order made under Section 3 of the Act for initiation of confiscation proceeding. I would like to make it clear that the view expressed by me is restricted in respect of those cases where an order of discharge is passed by the Criminal Court, holding that no Order made under Section 3 of the Act is contravened by the accused. No opinion is being expressed by me where discharge order is passed on any other ground. 15. … 16. Under Section 452 Cr. P.C., the normal rule is that in case the accused is discharged or acquitted in an offence relating to property, the Court must restore property to him, if any, recovered from his possession. In case, where ownership and possession are not in dispute, it would be fair and equitable to return the seized commodity to the owner in the event of an acquittal or discharge. Justice and reason constitute general legislative intent in every piece of legislation. The intention of legislature could only be to promote the standard of justice and propriety. It is plain by the language of Section 6A and 6C that for an order of confiscation of an essential commodity it is necessary and a condition precedent that there should be contravention of an Order made under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the accused by a competent criminal court after holding that no Order made under Section 3 of the Act has been contravened, will carry the same meaning as that 10 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 of an acquittal deployed in Section 6A or 6C of the Act. Any other interpretation would lead to contradiction and absurdity.” 9. It may be relevant to extract Section 6 (C) (2) of the EC Act, 1955 which reads as under: “Where an order under section 6A is modified or annulled by such judicial authority, or where in a prosecution instituted for the contravention of the order in respect of which an order of confiscation has been made under section 6A, the person concerned is acquitted, and in either case it is not possible, for any reason to return the essential commodity seized, such persons shall, except as provided by sub-section (3) of section 6A, be paid the price therefore as if the essential commodity, had been sold to the Government with reasonable interest calculated from the day of the seizure of the essential commodity and such price shall be determined.” 10. The seizure of the vehicle and the rice on 19.10.2023 resulted in both criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings. Since the criminal case against the petitioners has been acquitted/quashed, the basis for alleged illegal transportation of PDS rice no longer survives. In view of the acquittal/quashment of the criminal case and having regard to the mandate of Section 6(C)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement Roc.E4/223/2023, dt. 14.12.2023 is hereby set aside. In view of the same, the respondent No.2 is directed to 11 VS,J W.P.NO.32905 OF 2023 release the seized stock i.e., 540 bags of boiled rice and as well as the vehicle bearing No.AP39 UN 7869 in favour of the petitioners without imposing any conditions. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:02.12.2025 LSP