AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondents.
This Writ Petition is filed 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 3rd respondent in seizing 310 Qtls of raw rice belongs to the 1st petitioner along with lorry bearing No. AP 26 TE 1233 belongs to the petitioner on 09.08.2026 on NH-16 at Venkatachalam Tollgate, Venkatachalam Mandal, SPS Nellore District and preparing the panchanama on 10.08.2026 and further order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.B2.226/2026, dt.25.08.2026 directing to sell the seized stock through public auction and ordering to release the seized lorry bearing No. AP 26 TE 1233 to the 2nd petitioner on his producing Bank F.D.R for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the orders made there under and consequently set aside the order Rc.B2.226/2026, dt.25.08.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to release 310 Qtls of raw rice to the 1st petitioner and the lorry to the 2nd petitioner and not to take any action in pursuance of the illegal seizure…”
Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, for the respondents.
Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in seizing 310 quintals of raw rice belonging to petitioner No.1 along with vehicle bearing No.AP 26 TE 1233, belonging to petitioner No.2 under the cover of Panchanama dated 10.08.2026 (Ex.P2), the above Writ Petition was filed.
Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the material available on record, it is revealed that after the seizure of the rice and the vehicle, proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated before respondent No.2, the competent authority. Respondent No.2 is the competent authority to decide the illegality and validity of the seizure in the proceedings under Section 6A of the Act. This Court, at this juncture, is not inclined to interfere with 6A proceedings at this juncture.
However, given the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision reported in Onteru Bhaskar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department and others1, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to release the seized stock and the vehicle with certain conditions to protect the interest of both the parties, pending disposal of 6A proceedings.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing respondent No.2 to release the stock seized pursuant to the panchanama, dated 10.08.2026 (Ex.P2) in favour of petitioner No.1, subject to the condition of furnishing personal or third party immovable property as security, equivalent to the value of the seized stock, within two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Respondent No.2 shall also release the seized vehicle bearing No.AP 26 TE 1233, in favour of petitioner No.2 upon furnishing the personal or third-party immovable property security equivalent to the value of the seized vehicle, subject to usual conditions, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Collector(CS), Nellore (respondent No.2) shall ensure the collection of samples of the seized stock in the presence of the petitioners before releasing the stock. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, `pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.2022 SCC Online AP 348