Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15653 (AP)

BANDIMEKALA BALARAMUDU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/2321/2026 · 2026-01-28

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010039052026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2321/2026 Between: 1. BANDIMEKALA BALARAMUDU, S/O OBULESU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O 12-154, AMBEDKAR COLONY, YADIKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMUDISTRICT-515408. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 515001. 3. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DY TAHSILDAR, YADKI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT- 515408. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 2nd respondent passed order vide Interim Disposal Order for Seized Stock in Rc.No.K6/264/2025 dated 25-11- 2025 in insisting upon furnishing of Bank Guarantee for Rs 1,46,13,240/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release 2 the seized rice stock on the petitioner furnishing the solvent third-party sureties or personal bond for the said amount to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the Order vide Interim Disposal Order for Seized Stock in Rc.No.K6/264/2025 dated 25-11-2025 to the extent of insisting upon Bank Guarantee and direct provisional release of seized stock on third-party surely, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: To declare the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the order vide interim disposal order for seized stock in Rc.No.K6/264/2025 dated 25.11.2025 in insisting upon furnishing of bank guarantee for Rs.1,46,13,240/-, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sravana Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought in the present writ petition is limited in scope, inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has passed an interim disposal order in respect of the seized stock, directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,46,13,240/-. He further submitted that instead of insisting upon a bank guarantee, a direction may be given to the authorities to accept third-party security. He further submitted that in similar set of facts, this Court, in W.P.No.9735 of 2023, considered the very same issue and granted relief, accordingly, prayed to pass orders in this writ petition in similar lines. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, accordingly, prayed to dispose of the writ petition in the same lines. 4 5. Taking their submissions into consideration, as a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has already dealt with the similar issue and thereby passed orders, this Court is inclined to consider the same and dispose of the writ petition in the same lines. “The respondents shall release the seized stock in favour of the petitioner on condition of furnishing immovable property security equivalent to the value of the seized stock, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 29th January, 2026 RKS