APHC010112762019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5060/2019 Between: 1. DARSI SUBBA RAO,, S/O. D. SUBBA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OWNER OF RICE AND LORRY BEARING No.AP04TW4849, R/O.D.No.3/22, AMMAVARISHALA VEEDHI, PORUMAMILLA TOWN AND MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR C S, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPURY TAHSILDAR PDS, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus action of the Respondents dated- 17.01-2017 at Veerapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District they are Conducted/Panchanama seized the petitioner lorry along with stock 48 bags Rice containing 232-60 Quintals and initiate proceeding Under Section 6-A of -2- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J E.C. Act to released of seized stock and Vehicle, Petitioner furnished bank guarantee deposited amount for stock Rs. 5,31,500/- for Vehicle Deposited Rs. 5,31,500/-dated- 16.05.2017 till date not return the amount is illegal arbitrary and violate of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 Respondent No. 2 returned to the petitioner deposit amount of Rs. 5,31,500/- for release of Vehicle and amount of Rs. 5,31,500/- release the seized stock dated - 16.05.2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: -3- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 238/2019 Between: 1. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION STSTEM, GANNAVARAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. D SUBBA RAO, OWNER OF RICE AND LORRY AP 04 TW 4849, PROUMAMILLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DIST. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to the judgment dated 29.05.2018 in E.C. Appeal No.356/2017 on the file of the Sessions judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, in allowing appeal by setting aside order of the Collector (CS) Krishna, Machilipatnam confiscation seized stock and vehicle. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 condone the delay of 183 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition against the orders dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Session Judge, Krishna division, Machilipatnam in E.E.Appeal No.356/2017 or else the petitioners department will be put to irreparable loss. pending disposal of the criminal revision case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following common order: -4- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.5060 of 2019 The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: <....to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus action of the Respondents dated 17-01-2017 at Veerapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, they are Conducted/ Panchanama seized the petitioner lorry along with stock 48 bags Rice containing 232.60 Quintals and initiate proceeding Under Section 6-A of E.C. Act to released of seized stock and Vehicle, Petitioner furnished bank guarantee deposited amount for stock Rs.5,31,500/- for Vehicle Deposited Rs.5,31,500/- dated 16.05.2017 till date not return the amount is illegal arbitrary and violate of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India...= CRL.R.C. NO: 238/2019 Challenging the judgment dated 29.05.2018 in E.C.A.No.356 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, the present Criminal revision case is filed. 1. The petitioner in W.P.No.5060 of 2019 is the 1st respondent in Crl.R.C. No.238 of 2019. The petitioner in Crl.R.C. No.238 of 2019 is the 3rd respondent in W.P. No.5060 of 2019. In order to avoid confusion, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in W.P. No.5060 of 2019. 2. The petitioner is doing rice business by purchasing rice and selling the same to needy people. The petitioner is also having a hire purchase lorry bearing No.AP 04 TW 4840 for transporting the said rice. While things stood thus, on 17.01.2017, while the petitioner was transporting rice, the Vigilance Officer intercepted the lorry at Veerapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, and seized the lorry along with the stock of 48 bags of rice containing -5- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J 232.60 quintals and initiated proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the petitioner. 3. Challenging the said action, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.2273 of 2017, which was disposed of by directing the respondents therein to release the seized stock and seized vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.5,31,500/- as bank guarantee for the release of the seized stock and also deposited Rs.5,31,500/- for the release of the seized vehicle. 4. Thereafter, respondent No.2/District Collector passed final orders under Section 6A in E.C.P.No.5 of 2017, dated 20.09.2017, the operative portion of the order is as follows:- <In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, it is hereby ordered forfeiture of the bank guarantees filed by the respondent No.1 each for amount of Rs.5,31,500/- in view of the 100% confiscation of the seized stock and vehicle as the same were released to the respondent No.1 on furnishing of a bank guarantee for Rs.5,31,500/- for both stock and seized vehicle separately as the charges framed against the respondents were held proved. The amounts covered by two bank guarantees shall be transferred to the Government head of account <1456-Civil Supplies, 800-Other Receipts, 81-Other items,= after appeal time is over.= 5. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide E.C.A. No.356 of 2017 before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam. The learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 29.05.2018, allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and directed the respondent authorities concerned to return the bank guarantee furnished by the -6- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J appellant/petitioner herein. In pursuance of the orders dated 29.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, the petitioner filed a representation before the 2nd respondent for refund of the bank guarantee, but no action was initiated by the respondents on the said representation. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, in E.C.A. No.356 of 2017 dated 29.05.2018, the 3rd respondent preferred Crl.R.C. No.238 of 2019 before this Court. 7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents. 8. As the petitioner herein is seeking compliance with the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, in E.C.A. No.356 of 2017 dated 29.05.2018, and the same is under challenge by the respondent authorities in Crl.R.C. No.238 of 2019, this Court feels it appropriate to pass orders in the Crl.R.C. before considering the writ petition. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while arguing the Crl.R.C., submits that the petitioner purchased Public Distribution System rice meant for the consumption of the cardholders at lower rates and sold the same in the black market at higher rates for his pecuniary gains, with the active connivance of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and -7- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J transported the same into the black market for illegal pecuniary gains. As such, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent ought to have been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that the Court below failed to appropriately consider Clause 2K(4) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008, as the word >purchase? must be understood as purchase from a legal source and not purchase of PDS rice. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the impugned orders passed in the Crl.R.C., stated that the 2nd respondent authority, without conducting any enquiry as to whether the petitioner was transporting PDS rice or not, straightaway seized the rice under the guise of PDS rice, and as such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Further, on a perusal of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in E.C.P. No.5 of 2017, it can be observed that though it is alleged that the petitioner was illegally transporting 232.60 quintals of PDS rice into the black market for illegal and pecuniary gains with the active connivance of respondents No.2 and 3 and that he was doing rice business without any valid licence, thereby contravening Clause 2K(4) of the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (L&RS) Order, 2008, no enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent nor the rice samples were sent for analysis. -8- W.P. No.5060 of 2019 & CRL.R.C. No.238 of 2019 VS, J 11. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge below has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, duly considering the fact that as per G.O. Ms. No.20 dated 20.11.2014, the licensing system was taken away by the Government of India, and as such, one can transport or possess any quantity of rice without a licence. As per the Circular in CCS Ref. No.PI(3)/1831/2014 dated 09.04.2015 issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, no licence is required for the transport of rice and paddy. 12. In view of the above observation, the Crl.R.C is dismissed and the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 29.05.2018 are upheld. 13. In view of the orders passed in Crl.R.C No.238 of 2019, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to return two bank guarantees submitted by the petitioner on 10.06.2018 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal revision case and the writ petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:07.01.2026 LSP