Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 03.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010332762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17778/2026 Between: 1. CHINTHAKUNTA SHABIR BASHA, S/O.MABU SAHEB, AGE 48 YEARS, OWNER OF LORRY, BEARINGNO. AP39WP0003, R/O. D.NO.6/226,KOTHAPALLIVILLAGE, PRODDUTUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE COLLECTOR CS, MARKAPUR DISTRICT - 523316. 3. THE HEAD CONSTABLE, KOMAROLE P.S. MARKAPUR DISTRICT - 523373. (RESPONDENT NO.L IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS LA) ...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 order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the lorry of the petitioner bearing No. AP 39 WP 0003 along with 163 bags of raw rice under the cover of mediator report, dt. 15.06.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders made there under including the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 and contrary to the judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 241 and set aside the same and direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure 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 direct the respondents to release the lorry bearing No. AP 39 WP 0003 to the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seizing the petitioner’s lorry bearing No.AP 39 WP 0003 along with 163 bags of raw rice, under the cover of mediator’s report, dated 15.06.2026, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction to set aside the Panchanama (Ex.P1), on the ground lack of jurisdiction. Page 3 of 6 3. The petitioner is the owner of subject lorry, which is engaged for transporting vegetables, etc. On 14.06.2026, after transporting vegetables from Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District to Markapur, the vehicle was engaged for transporting raw rice to Porumamilla. While transporting 163 bags of raw rice, on 15.06.2026 at about 6:30 am, respondent No.3 inspected the vehicle at Komarole-Porumamilla highway and seized the lorry along with the stock, under mediator’s report, Ex.P1, on the allegation of transporting PDS rice. A case in crime No.40 of 2026 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizure of the vehicle along with the stock by respondent No.3, is without jurisdiction. As per clause 20(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018 (for short ‘the Order, 2018’), any office or person authorized by the State Government or by the District Collector or by Collector (Civil Supplies) the appointing authority or any office of the Civil Supplies/other State Government departments not below the rank of Revenue Inspector/Checking Inspector/Enquiry Inspector (Civil Supplies), or any Gazetted Officer of vigilance and Enforcement Department of the State or any officer authorized in the behalf by the State Government not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police may enter the premises of Fair Price shop or any private premises where the schedule 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 etc. However, 3rd respondent, without jurisdiction, seized the vehicle and stock. Page 4 of 6 5. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Civil Supplies brought to the notice of this Court about the order passed by respondent No.2 vide Rc.CS1/6A/7626/2026, dated 02.07.2026. 6. A plain reading of clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018 clearly indicates that the officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, is competent to seize the stock or a vehicle. 7. In the case at hand, a perusal of Ex.P1, mediator's report shows that respondent No.3, a Head Constable, seized the vehicle along with the stock and registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2026, based on the confession made by the driver. Since, respondent No.3 is below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, he has no jurisdiction or authorized to seize the vehicle. 8. In Sri Vigneswara Traders, Komerapudi village v. Circle Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, YSR Kadapa1, a Single Judge of the composite High Court considered an identical issue and allowed the writ petition and infact imposed costs on the ground that the Head Constable has no jurisdiction /authorization to seize the vehicle. In fact, the ratio was subsequently followed in W.P.Nos.16240 of 2019 and 18232 of 2020. 9. Thus, given clause 20(a) of the Control Order, 2018 and the decision referred to supra, the seizure of the vehicle itself is illegal and hence, registration of crime No.40 of 2026 under Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 7 of the E.C. Act, is unsustainable. Since the seizure itself is without jurisdiction, the consequential order of respondent No.2 cannot be given effect to. 10. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, his writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission. The respondents are directed to release 1 2013 (4) ALD 241 the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 WP 0003 forthwith, to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 03.07.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17778 of 2026 Date: 03.07.2026 IKN