APHC010688782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 35298/2025 Between: 1. K HARINADH, S/O. KODANDARAMIREDDY, AGED 43YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF HR TRADERS, NO.2928, MANNADI STREET, PERIA OBULAPURAM, GUMMIDIPOONDI TALUK, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT., TAMILNADU STATE 2. GUDALA SRINU, S/O. GUDALA SATYANARAYANA, AGE 32 YEARS. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP05 TM1395, R/O. D.NO.L 1- 155, KRISHNAMMA CHERUVU VEEDHI, CHELLURU, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533352. 3. THE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RANGAMPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533291. ...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 2 VS,J W.P.No.35298 of 2025 seizing 500 bags of boiled rice weighing 50 kgs each along with lorry bearing No.AP05 TM1395 belong to the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, under cover of mediators report, dt. 16.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under and direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of illegal seizure and release the stock and the lorry to the petitioners forthwith 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 respondent No.2 and 3 to release 500 bags of boiled rice weighing 50 kgs each to 1st the petitioner and the lorry bearing No.AP05 TM1395 to the 2ND petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.35298 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 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 boiled rice weighing 50 kgs each along with lorry bearing No.AP05 TM1395 belong to the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, under cover of mediators report, dt. 16.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law or jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under and direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of illegal seizure and release the stock and the lorry to the petitioners forthwith…..” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The 1st petitioner is carrying on business in food grains such as raw rice and boiled rice under the name and style of „HR Traders‟ with valid GSTIN:33CZUPK5779D1ZT. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the lapse of Government of India Circular No.3543 (E), dated 29.11.2013 there is no necessity to obtain a food grains license and to maintain any bill or records as per the conditions of FGL, as no FGL is in force and rice has become a free sale commodity. There are no transport restrictions and storage limits in respect of paddy and rice, as rice has become a free sale commodity. b) During the course of business, the 1st petitioner received an order from a dealer of Sai Hanumanth Industries Private Limited, Gota Road, Paragaon, Nawapara (Rajim), Raipur, Chhattisgarh for supply of 250 quintals 4 VS,J W.P.No.35298 of 2025 of boiled rice i.e., 500 bags (each bag weighing 50 kgs). Accordingly, the petitioner raised bill No.97, dated 15.10.2025 in favour of the said purchaser. c) While the lorry bearing No.AP05 TM1395 was proceeding towards Raipur, it was intercepted on 16.10.2025 at about 12.30 p.m., at ADB Road by the 3rd respondent/Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Rangampeta, East Godavari District and the stock along with the vehicle was seized under the cover of Mediators report. The driver produced Bill No.97 dated 15.10.2025 at the time of interception. Even as per the mediators report, the 3rd respondent recorded that the consignment consisted of machine-stitched plastic bags containing boiled rice with fortified kernels. It was merely suspected that the said rice was Public Distribution System (PDS) rice supplied by the Government of Tamil Nadu. d) It is contended that the 3rd respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to seize the stock and the vehicle, particularly when the rice was boiled rice transported pursuant to a commercial transaction supported by valid documentation. It is further contended that the mediators‟ report is vitiated as the mandatory procedure under Section 103(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was not followed, since the mediators cited are Government employees and not independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality. (e) Subsequent to the seizure, the 3rd respondent submitted a report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the 2nd 5 VS,J W.P.No.35298 of 2025 respondent, and the stock along with the vehicle was kept at Sri Rama Krishna Mill, Pedarayavaram Village. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. f) The petitioner further contended that with effect from 01.12.2014, there are no transport restrictions for rice and paddy anywhere in the country and the licensing system has been rescinded. When rice belonging to Tamil Nadu is being transported to Karnataka while merely passing through Andhra Pradesh, the respondents have no authority to seize the same. The A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, has no application to rice belonging to another State. 3. Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that as per Clause 14 of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 issued by the Government of India under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, an officer authorized by the State Government shall be competent to inspect, search and seize the stocks, where such authority has reason to believe that the same have been used in contravention of the provisions of the Order. It is further stated that as per Clause 20(a) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2018, „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 Department or other State Government departments not below the rank of Revenue Inspector/Checking Inspector/Enquiry Inspector (Civil Supplies), or any Gazetted Officer of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department of the 6 VS,J W.P.No.35298 of 2025 State or any officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, may enter the premises of a fair price shop or any private premises where the scheduled commodities pertaining to the 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 documents for the purpose of such inspection or seizure for contravention of the provisions of the Order. Therefore, the respondents are empowered to conduct inspection, search or seizure of the stocks and the question of jurisdiction does not arise in this case. point will not be arisen in this case. It is further stated in the counter that the 3rd respondent/Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar, Rangampeta, after noticing fortified rice kernels in the rice stocks in the lorry, seized the stock along with the lorry and submitted a report before the Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari District, and that the case is under trial before the Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari District. 4. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 5. For better appreciation of the case, Clause 19(f) of the Control Order, 2018, is extracted hereunder: “19(f) Purchase of rice supplied / intended for supply through Public Distribution System either from the card holder or from the fair price shop dealer or any middle man or other source. Otherwise, such fair price shop dealer or middle man or other 7 VS,J W.P.No.35298 of 2025 person involved shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority.” The definition of “Government” under Clause 12(y) of the Control Order, 2018, reads as under: “2(y) “Government” means the Government of Andhra Pradesh” Clause 2(hh) of the Control Order, 2018, which defined “Schedule Commodity” is as under: “(hh) “Schedule Commodity” means any commodity specified in the schedule to this Order, which is intended to supply by the State Government or by an agency appointed by the State Government to any authorised fair price shop for distribution to the cardholders” 6. On a perusal of the said definitions, it can be understood that „Government‟ means the “State Government” and the „Schedule Commodities‟ means the commodities which are specified in the schedule of Control Order, 2018 which is intended to supply by the State Government i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh and as such, the clause under 19(f) of the Control Order, 2018 also applies to the PDS rice, which is being supplied to the card holders in the State Government of Andhra Pradesh only. But, however, the case of the petitioner is that he has 10. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner was transporting 250 quintals of boiled rice (500 bags of 50 kgs each) pursuant to a commercial transaction supported by a valid tax invoice. Even as per the Mediatornama, the seized stock consists of boiled rice and raw rice and not PDS rice. Boiled rice does not fall within the definition of “Scheduled 8 VS,J W.P.No.35298 of 2025 Commodity” under Clause 2(hh) of the Control Order, 2018. Therefore, the transportation of such rice does not attract the provisions of the Control Order. Consequently, the seizure of the stock and vehicle, initiation of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, and issuance of the impugned mediators‟ report dated 16.10.2025 are wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Mediatornama dated 16.10.2025 and as well as the 6-A proceedings of the Essential Commodities Act pending before the 2nd respondent No are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Mediatornama, dated 16.10.2025 as well as the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, that are pending before the 2nd respondent No are hereby set aside. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to release the seized stock i.e., 250 quintals of boiled rice (500 bags, each weighing 50 kgs) and as well as the vehicle bearing No.AP05 TM1395, in favour of the petitioners, without imposing any conditions. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2026 KGR