Thota Pullaiah, Warangal Dist. vs The ...

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3187 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 October, 2023

Telangana High Court
Thota Pullaiah, Warangal Dist. vs The ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

              WRIT PETITION No.14771 OF 2014

ORDER : (ORAL)


      This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated

09.05.2014 in E.C.A.C. No.65/2014, in file No.867/2014, passed

by respondent No.1, whereunder respondent No.3 was directed to

sell the seized stock i.e. 549.24 quintals of red gram whole, seized by respondent No.2 on 22.04.2014, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is carrying out business in pulses in the name and style of M/s. Thirumala Industries at Premises No.5-3-109/1 at Kesamudram under licence issued by the competent authority. On 22.04.2014, respondent No.2 visited the business place of the petitioner and verified the books of accounts. Respondent No.2 noticed that certain stocks were stored in the house of the petitioner bearing No.4-4 at Kesamudram which are not included in the licence. On such allegations, entire stocks of the petitioner were seized. It is submitted that the petitioner stored some of the stocks in the premises bearing No.5-3-109/1 at 2 Kesamudram which is a place included in the licence and as there was a short of place for storage, the petitioner stored some of the red gram in the house and same was intimated to the authorities requesting for the inclusion of his house premises in the licence but the same has not been considered. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "E.C. Act"), calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the seized stocks should not be confiscated. While so, respondent No.1 issued resumption order dated 05.05.2014 invoking the provisions under Section 6-A(2) of the E.C. Act, directing respondent No.3 to sell the seized stock in open auction.

3. On 29.05.2014, in I.A. No.1 of 2014 (W.P.M.P. No.18309 of 2014), this Court passed the following interim order:

"There shall be an interim stay for a period of six (06) weeks." However, it appears that the stay order was not extended.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies produced written instructions and submitted that subject matter of this writ petition has become infructuous.

3

5. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 - the District Collector, Warangal passed final orders of confiscation under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act and ordered confiscation of 37% value of the stock variation i.e. Rs.12,97,740/-. Aggrieved by the orders of respondent No.1, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2014 under Section 6-C of the Act before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 09.09.2014, modifying the order of confiscation by reducing it to 15% value of stock found in variation i.e. 1,91,691/- from 37% value of the stock variation i.e. Rs.12,97,740/-. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Case No.2186 of 2014 before this Court challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2014. This Court disposed of the Criminal Revision Case by the order dated 04.08.2016 by modifying the order of penalty from confiscation of stocks worth of Rs.1,91,961/- to confiscation of stock worth of Rs.1,00,000/-. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide Challan Nos.0000028065, 0000028062 and 4 0000028060 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.40,000/-, respectively, totalling to Rs.1,00,000/-. On instructions of respondent No.1, the Assistant Supply Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal handed over the seized stocks to the petitioner from the custodian viz. Volam Chandra Mohan S/o Rajagopalam, partner of M/s Siddartha Industries, Kesamudram under proper acknowledgement.

6. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infurctuous. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Dt: 16.10.2023 RRK