Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56670 (AP)

M SRINIVASULU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/29392/2025 · 2025-11-16

V Sujatha

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010566782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29392/2025 Between: 1. M SRINIVASULU, S/O. RAMANAJANEYULU, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 19-399, TELUGUPETA, BANAGANIPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. M. PRAMEELA DEVI, D/O. GUDURU BALA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SRINIVASA RICE MILL, SY.NO.244, BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE, OWK ROAD, BANGANAPALLI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARATE, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTER, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AT NANDYAL ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANAGANAPALLI PS, BANAGANAPALLI, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the continued possession and non-release of 495.00 Qtls (995 bags) of rice by Respondent No.2, despite confiscation 2 VS,J W.P.No.29392 of 2025 order vide Rc.CS2/191/2022 dated 01.04.2023 being set aside vide order dated 15th July, 2025 in C.A. No. 13 of 2024 before the Honble Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and against the principals of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to release 495.00 Qtls (995 bags) of rice, and hand over to the petitioners and pass IA 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 Pleased to direct the respondents to release 495.00 Qtls (995 bags) of rice of the petitioners in view of the confiscation order of the 2nd Respondent vide Rc.CS2/191/2022 dated 01.04.2023 being set aside vide order dated 15th July, 2025 in C.A. No. 13 of 2024 before the Honble Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and hand over to the Petitioners, forthwith pending disposal of Writ petition before this Honble court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VANGA ANITA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.29392 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “… to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the continued possession and non-release of 495.00 Qtls (995 bags) of rice by Respondent No.2, despite confiscation order vide Rc.CS2/191/2022 dated 01.04.2023 being set aside vide order dated 15th July, 2025 in C.A. No. 13 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and against the principals of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to release 495.00 Qtls (995 bags) of rice, and hand over to the petitioners ….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, Mr. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms.Vanga Anita, learned counsel for the petitioner, informed this Court that, pending the writ petition, the Joint Collector has released the seized stock in favour of the petitioner, and as such, requested this Court to close the writ petition. 4. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 17.11.2025 KGR