AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in EC. Act Case No. CS6/61/2022, dt. 27/06/2026 seized stocks of 140.70 Quintals of rice is hereby confiscated to the Government under 6-A of the E.C. Act, 1955 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on vehicle bearing ,No. AP-25-V2964 as being illegal, improper and arbitrary, without any authority of law and violation of Article 14, 19(1), (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, to set-aside the same and pass..."
The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Anjaneya Traders, represented by its proprietor, purchased 557.74 quintals of rice in a public auction conducted by the 2nd Respondent on 24.07.2021, of which 140.70 quintals remained stored at M/s. Datta Rice Mill, Kamareddy. The said stock was subsequently seized under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were initiated. Though the petitioner sought release of the stock and this Hon'ble Court had earlier issued directions in W.P. No. 21628 of 2022, the authorities did not release the stock and ultimately passed an order of confiscation. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings before the appellate authority, and thereafter before this Hon'ble Court in Crl.R.C. No. 738 of 2023, wherein the order passed in Crl.A. No. 57 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and Session Judge was set aside. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2026, rejecting the petitioner's claim without properly considering the material documents produced by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the impugned proceedings and for release of the seized stock of 140.70 quintals of rice.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26.09.2024 in W.A.Nos.24 of 2022 and 1209 of 2023 observed as under :-
" 6. Admittedly, against the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, an appeal lies under Section 6-C of the Act. The appellant has been prosecuting the remedy of the writ petition as well as the writ appeals and since the order passed under Section 6-A of the Act has been passed during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, we grant liberty to the appellant to file an appeal under Section 6-C of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. In case such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall treat the same to be within limitation by according the benefit contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is clarified that all questions, including the question whether the commodity in question is covered under the Act, are kept open to be agitated in the appeal which may be preferred under Section 6-C of the Act by the appellant. It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case of the parties.
7.With the aforesaid liberty, the appeals are disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs".
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 brings on record the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 26.09.2024 passed in W.A.Nos.24 of 2022 and 1209 of 2023 and contends that the present writ petition could be disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a reasonable period.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to approach the appellate Authority, i.e., the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, as provided under the statute, against the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2026 passed in E.C. Act Case No. CS6/61/2022 by the Respondent No. 2 herein.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act, 1955, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the appellate Authority is directed to dispose the same by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.