The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi, while allowing a writ petition remarked that statutory notice before confiscation of essential commodity is mandatory under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act. (Dommaraju Vinay, Versus The State of A.P.)
Facts of the case
The case of the petitioners 1 and 2 was that they are the owners of the seized rice and lorry respectively; first petitioner is dealer in food grains and he purchased paddy and converted it into rice; while he was transporting the same with e-way bills through the subject lorry the same was seized along with lorry on 11.02.2022 alleging that the subject rice is PDS rice; petitioners filed a petition on 14.02.2022 seeking release of the seized rice along with lorry by enclosing all the necessary documents; without taking the same into consideration, the second respondent passed an order on 09.03.2022 ordering confiscation of the seized stock to the Government and directing the Tahsildar to dispose of the seized stock through public auction; he also issued an endorsement on the same day directing the second petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,13,750/- in favour of the Collector (CS) for release of the seized vehicle.
This Writ Petition was filed questioning the seizure of 160 bags of raw rice along with lorry under seizure panchanama dated 11.02.2022 and the order of the second respondent dated 09.03.2022 directing the third respondent to dispose of the seized stock in public auction and the direction to the second petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,13,750/- for release of the seized lorry as arbitrary and illegal.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for petitioner contended that no notice under Section 6B of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was issued to the first petitioner before passing the orders confiscating the seized stock. Section 6B provides that no order confiscating any essential commodity package shall be made unless such person from whom it is seized is given a notice informing him of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate and is given an opportunity of making a representation against the ground of confiscation.
The Government Pleader submitted that no notice was issued to the first petitioner before passing the confiscation orders.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench noted that it was clear that notice under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act was not issued to the petitioner and thus, the proceeding confiscating the stock was set aside.
The bench disposing of the petition remarked, "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to get the subject vehicle valued by the concerned Motor Vehicle Inspector in the presence of the second petitioner after serving notice on her and the second petitioner is directed to furnish the third party immovable property security by executing a bond in favour of the second respondent strictly adhering to the Stamps and Registration Laws, as per the value fixed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and on production of such third party immovable property as security, the second respondent is directed to release the subject vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 TB 2444 as interim custody to the second petitioner in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the second petitioner shall not alienate or change the nature of the vehicle during the pendency of the enquiry."
The Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
