APHC010063842022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4185/2022 Between: 1. MALEPATI VENKATA SUNEEL KUMAR, S/O LATE VENKATASUBBARAO, AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF SRI SUDHARSHAN TRADERS, R/O. BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER 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 JOINT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE HEAD CONSTABLE, , MANGALIRI RURAL P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR 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 3rd respondent in seizing 500 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs belong to the petitioner along with lorry bearing No.AP 04 TW 5629 under a cover of police proceedings, dt.31.01.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law, competency or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential 2 VS,J W.P.No.4185 of 2022 Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under including the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also contrary to the judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 241 and set aside the same and direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure 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 respondent Nos.2 to 4 to release 500 bags of raw rice weighing 50 kgs each to the petitioner, which was seized by the 3"I respondent on 31.01.2022 forthwith, pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.4185 of 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of 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 3rd respondent in seizing 500 bags of raw rice each weighing 50 kgs belong to the petitioner along with lorry bearing No.AP 04 TW 5629 under a cover of police proceedings, dt.31.01.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law, competency or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under including the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and also contrary to the judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 241 and set aside the same and direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure..…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Sudharshan Traders, Badvel, Kadapa District and possesses a valid registration certificate under GSTIN No.37BPKPM9540P1ZY. The petitioner is engaged in the business of food grains and general merchandise. In the regular course of business, the petitioner purchased paddy from ryoths, gets it milled, and also purchases rice from rice mills and wholesale traders, which is thereafter sold to various traders and consumers. b) During the course of business, the petitioner received an order from a registered trader, M/s.Chandra Enterprise, Kakinada for supply of 250 quintals of raw rice i.e., 500 bags each weighing 50 kgs. Accordingly, the petitioner 4 VS,J W.P.No.4185 of 2022 raised a bill/tax vide invoice bearing No.19/2021-22, dated 31.01.2022 in favour of M/s.Chandra Enterprises, Kakinada. Subsequently, the petitioner engaged a lorry bearing registration No.AP04 TW5629, belonging to one Yenuboina Venkataswamy of Badvel, for transportation of the said rice to Kakinada and got the rice loaded into the said lorry. While the lorry was proceeding towards Kakinada, it was intercepted by the Head Constable of Mangalarigi Police Station., i.e., the 3rd respondent herein at Kaja Toll Gate at about 10.30 a.m., on 31.01.2022 and seized the stock under police proceedings on the allegation that the rice being transported was PDS rice. c) The grievance of the petitioner is that the rice seized by the 3rd respondent does not belong to the Public Distribution System and that, though the lorry driver produced the relevant tax invoice before the 3rd respondent, the same was not taken into consideration. The 3rd respondent seized the stock along with the vehicle and registered a case in Crime No. 74/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, the seized stock was handed over to the 4th respondent, who in turn submitted a report to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent had no power, authority, or jurisdiction under law to seize the said rice or the vehicle. d) It is further contended that the seized stock of rice is not PDS rice and that the 3rd respondent has no power to search for or seize scheduled commodities. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the 5 VS,J W.P.No.4185 of 2022 aforesaid stock of rice under police proceedings dated 31.01.2022 and registering the above crime, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 17.02.2022, this Court passed the following interim order: “….the respondents are directed to release the commodities as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 3rd respondent is not authorized and competent to seize the stock and vehicle for the alleged offence. Even if the alleged offence is true, as per Clause 20(a) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 a Police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police is competent to seize and register the case for the alleged offence, but not the 3rd respondent herein. He further relied on a judgment of this Court in Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi village, Sattenapallimandal, Guntur district Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, Kadapa district and two others to substantiate his contention. Hence, it is contended that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to conduct the seizure or initiate proceedings under 6 VS,J W.P.No.4185 of 2022 Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that, in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the seized stock has been released to the petitioner. 7. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. The question that needs to be answered is whether the 3rd respondent – Head Constable, is competent enough to search and seize the stock/vehicle on reasonable suspicion that the said stock is PDS rice. As such, it would be suffice to refer to Clause 20 (a) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, which reads as under: ““Any officer or person authorized by the State Government or by the District Collector or by Collector (Civil Supplies) the appointing authority or any officer of the Civil Supplies/other State Government departments not below the rank of Revenue Inspector/Checking Inspector/Enquiry Inspector (Civil Supplies), or any Gazetted Officer of Vigilance and Enforcement Department of the State or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, may enter the premises of the fair priceshop or any private premises where the scheduled commodities pertaining to Targeted Public Distribution system or other Government schemes are kept/positioned or found in transit and conduct inspection and seize any stocks of scheduled commodities, supply documents or books, accounts or other related document for the purpose of such inspection/seizure for contravention of the provisions of this Order, Officers of Legal Metrology Department, Team of Social Audit appointed by Commissioner of Civil Supplies are also empowered to inspect the fair price shop premises, in regard to weights and measures.” 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that as per Clause 20 (a) 7 VS,J W.P.No.4185 of 2022 of the Control Order, 2018, a Police officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector of the jurisdictional Police Station is empowered to search and seize the stock/vehicle on a reasonable suspicion that the stock being stored or transported is PDS rice. On such seizure, immediately, the said officer shall inform to the concerned officers for taking appropriate action as per the provisions of the Control Order and under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. In the case of Sri Vigneswara Traders (1st supra), this Court observed that the seizure of rice and vehicle on the suspicion that the rice which is being transported in the vehicle was PDS rice by the Head Constable is illegal and without jurisdiction. The said principle of law was also followed by this Court while disposing W.P.No.28403 of 2021 (dated 02.12.2021) and W.P.No.17827 of 2019 (dated 12.11.2019). 9. In view of the above, the seizure of stocks and vehicle by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in F.I.R.No.74 of 2022 dated 31.01.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. 10. Accordingly, as the seizure itself is illegal without any jurisdiction, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings in F.I.R.No.74 of 2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 03.11.2025 KGR