APHC010548172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Si? TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No: 28235 OF 2025 Between: Garlapati Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, aged 49 years Occ: Proprietor of Gomati Rice Mill Mandal Krishna District. Rarakaturu Palem Village, Guduru ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District 2. The Collector (Civil Supplies), Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer. Bandar Division, Krishna District. , 4. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (PDS), Machilipatnam. Krishna District. 5. The District Supply Officer, Krishna District Machilipatnam. 6. The Tahsildar, Guduru Mandal Krishna District. 7. The Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ‘ ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ order or direction one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the inaction of the 2'’'^ respondent - Collector (CS) Krishna in passing the impugned Order in E.C.P. No. 59/2025, dated 08.09.2025 imposed the penalty for an amount of 100% of the stock value is imposed on the petitioner as per clause 19 (h) of AP State TPDS (Control) Order 2018 and also passed the order for block listing the petitioner rice mill for taking delivery of CMR Paddy under Custom Milling Operations, without conducting any enquiry and also without obtaining any explanation from the petitioner, illegally and highhandedly passed the order by block listing the petitioner rice mill is highly illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Control Order, 2008 and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India by setting aside the order dated 08.09.2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to delete / remove the name of the petitioner rice mill from the block list immediately in the interest of justice. lA No: 1 OF 2025 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 to Direct the Respondents to delete/remove the name of the petitioner rice mill from the block listing by suspending the impugned Order in E.C.P.No. 59/2025, dated 08.09.2025 passed by the 2'^^ respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TENEPALLI NIRANJAN Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: / APHC010548172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) // [3333] m TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28235/2025 Between: 1 GARLAPATI JAGAN MOHAN RAO, S/O.RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY, aged 49 YEARS OCC. PROPRIETOR OF GOMATI RICE MILL. RARAKATURU PALEM village, GUDURU MANDAL KRISHNA district ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT. AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES. 2) KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM 3) 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BANDAR DIVISION, KRISHNA DISTRICT 4) 4.THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR PDS, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 5) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT 5.THE MACHILIPATNAM 6 g jHE TAHSILDAR. ) GUDURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT 7.THE VIGILANCEENFORCEMENT OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2 vs.) W.P.No.28235 of 2025 ...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 p eased to issue a Writ order or direction one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd Krishna in respondent - Collector (CS) na no ama impugned Order in E.C.P. No. 59/2025, dated uy.09.2025 imposed the penalty for an amount of lOOpercent of the stock value IS imposed on the petitioner as per clause 19 (h) of AP State TPDS (Control) Order 2018 and also passed the order for block rice mill for taking delivery of CMR Paddy under Custom Milling Operations without conducting any enquiry and also without obtaining any explanation rom the petitioner, illegally and highhandedly passed the order by block listing the petitioner rice mill is highly illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Control Order 2008 and also violative of Articles 14, 19. 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India by setting aside the order dated 08.09.2025 the respondents to delete / listing the petitioner and consequently to direct the name of the petitioner rice mill from the block list immediately in the interest of justice and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 209!^ ... 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 to Direct the Respondents to delete/ remove the name of the petitioner rice mill from the block listing by suspending the impugned Order in E C P No "ff TT passed by the 2ndv respondent, pending disposal Of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders may deems it and proper in the interest of justice. as this Hon’ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TENEPALLI NIRANJAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.28235 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “...to issue a Writ, order or direction one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2^^ respondent - Collector (CS) Krishna in passing the impugned Order in E.C.P. No. 59/2025, dated 08.09.2025 imposed the penalty for amount of 100% of the stock value is imposed on the petitioner as per clause 19 an (h) of AP State TPDS (Control) Order 2018 and also passed the order for block listing the petitioner rice mill for taking delivery of CMR Paddy under Custom Milling Operations, without conducting any enquiry and also without obtaining any explanation from the petitioner, illegally and highhandedly passed the order by block listing the petitioner rice mill is highly illegal and arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Control Order, 2008 and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India by setting aside the order dated 08.09.2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to the petitioner rice mill from the block list delete / remove the name of immediately....” The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. a) The petitioner is running a rice mill under the name and style of ‘Gomati Rice Mill’ and is milling the paddy of CMR rice for the last two years. While the matter stood thus, on 02.07.2025 at about 5.00 a.m., the Vigilance and Enforcement officials, Vijayawada conducted a raid on the petitioner’s rice mill. During the said inspection, they intercepted a vehicle (Ashok Leyland Dost) bearing registration No. AP-16-TA-7249, which was found transporting 72 gunny and plastic bags containing rice under suspicious circumstances. b) Immediately, the officials called the petitioner and he explained that he had been running the rice mill for th^^ nast two years and also feeding the vs,j \ W.P.N0.28235 of 2025 COWS in the rice mill and on 02.07.2025 about 6.00 a.m., when he came to the rice mills for getting milk from the cows, he noticed TATA Intra vehicles bearing Nos.APSQTL 6555 and AP39VB 0766 were kept in the rice mill, and when the petitioner tried to ask the drivers about keeping the vehicles rice mill, the vigilance officials came to the rice mill and on enquiry, the drivers of the vehicles stated that they came to the rice mill for weighing the load in weight bridge available in the rice mill, but the officials did not listened to their words, illegally and highhandedly seized the stock and in the registered 6-A case against the petitioner by seizing the rice 55 bags of 59 kgs each of BPT rice and also seized the rice mill by conducting panchanama. c) Subsequently, the respondent filed a case in ECP No.59 of 2025 before the 2"'^ respondent. After hearing the matter, the 2"^^ respondent, vide order dated 08.09.2025, directed the 6'^ respondent i.e., Tahsildar, Guduru to dispose of the seized stock through public auction. Additionally, a penalty equivalent to 100% of the stock value was imposed on the petitioner under Clause 19(h) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution Order, 2018 and the 2^*^ respondent also System (Control) passed an order blacklisting the petitioner’s rice mill for taking delivery of CMR paddy under custom milling operations. d) The petitioner contends that the impugned order dated was passed without affording him an opportunity of explanation or personal 08.09.2025 5 VS,J W.P.No.28235of2025 respondent has no right to issue directions for nd hearing, and that the 2 blacklisting the petitioner. e) Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in E.C.Appeal No.15 of 2025 before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act 1955, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, which is pending adjudication. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is only with regard to the blacklisting the petitioner vide impugned order in E.C.P.No.59 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025 passed by the 2'^'^ respondent without having authority or jurisdiction. It is also the case of the petitioner that this is the first case filed against him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant 4. Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. For better appreciation of the case, sub-Section (1) of Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, is extracted hereunder: 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. 6 VS,J W.P.N0.28235 of 2025 6. Admittedly, the said provision relates only to appeals against orders of confiscation under Section 6A. However, in the present case, the petitioner was also blacklisted vide the impugned proceedings, which has become of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in E.C.Appeal.No.15 of 2025. The learned Judge before whom the said jurisdiction to interfere with the i the petitioner. a part appeal is pending would not have impugned order with regard to the blacklisting any 7. In view of the above facts and ci already preferred Principal District & Sessions circumstances, since the petitioner has an appeal in E.C.Appeal.No.15 of 2025 before the Judge, Special Judge under learned Essential Commodities Act 1955, Machilipatnam, Krishna District challenging the confiscation order passed under Section this Court is of the 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, respondent to the as such is liable opinion that the orders passed by the 2 extent of blacklisting the petitioner is without jurisdiction and to be set aside only to that extent. nd 8. This Court is further of the ordered only if the petitioner is a repeat offender. Since the petitioner has prior cases pending against him, and no alternative remedy is available to challenge the blacklisting, this Court deems it appropriate to partly allow the writ petition by setting aside the i dated 08.09.2025 only to the extent of blacklisting opinion that blacklisting should ordinarily be no impugned order in E.C.P. No.59 of 2025 him. / 7 vs,i W.P.No.28235of2025 Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order in E.C.P.No.59 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025, insofar as it blacklists the petitioner’s rice mill, is set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act in E.C.Appeal No.15 of 2025 before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Machilipatnam, shall be proceeded in accordance with law. 9. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/-M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, State of Andhra 1. The Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. The Collector (Civil Supplies)', Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer. Bandar Division, Krishna District. 4. The Special Deputy Tahsildar PDS, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5. The District Supply Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 6. The Tahsildar, Guduru Mandal Krishna District. 7. The VigilanceEnforcement Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District 8. One CC to Sri Tenepalli Niranjan, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 10. [OUT] Two CD Copies. 11. ssb \ HIGH COURT DATED: 14/10/2025 ORDER WP No. 28235 OF 2025 g( 27 OCT 2025 .^Js^urreiVi Seciion^ ^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS