The Assistant Supply Officer, vs M/S. Sri Sai Traders,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9573 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            &
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                  WRIT APPEAL Nos.956 and 957 of 2006
                                  (Through physical mode)


WRIT APPEAL No.956 of 2006

The Assistant Supply Officer, Circle - I, Vijayawada,
Krishna District, and another.
                                                            .. Appellants
       Versus

M/s. Sri Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor
Smt. Duddu Bala Tripura Sundari,
W/o. D. Koteswara Rao, R/o. 4-1-23,
Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and others.
                                                            .. Respondents

WRIT APPEAL No.957 of 2006

The Joint Collector, Nellore, Nellore District, and another.

.. Appellants Versus

K. Rama Mohan, S/o. K.M.V. Seshaiah, R/o. Venkatagiri Town, Nellore District.

.. Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL) Dt: 13.12.2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

These two writ appeals would call in question the common order dated

22.06.2006 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.Nos.4797 and

11572 of 2006 filed by the respondents/writ petitioners. W.A.No.956 of 2006 HCJ & NJS,J

arises out of W.P.No.4797 of 2006, while W.A.No.957 of 2006 arises out of

W.P.No.11572 of 2006.

2. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed questioning the action of the

respondent authorities therein in seizing the rice of the writ petitioners on the

allegation that it was meant for public distribution system and initiating

proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for

short, 'the Act of 1955'). Having observed that rice is not an essential

commodity and is only a scheduled commodity as per the provisions of the

A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001, the learned single

Judge opined that the impugned action of the authorities in invoking the

provisions of Section 6A of the Act of 1955 was without any authority of law,

and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions holding that the authorities have

no power to initiate proceedings under Section 6A of the Act of 1955 insofar

as the stock of rice seized from the possession of the writ petitioners is

concerned.

3. While admitting these writ appeals on 20.09.2006, interim orders have

been passed in both the appeals staying the operation of the order under

challenge and subsequently, the said interim orders have been made absolute

to last till final disposal of the appeals. Resultantly, the proceedings under

Section 6A of the Act of 1955 would stand revived.

HCJ & NJS,J

4. Today, at the hearing, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would

submit that the seized rice has already been released to the writ petitioners

and as per the instructions received by him, the proceedings under Section

6A of the Act of 1955 do not survive as on date.

5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit

that in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the writ

petitioners, the proceedings of these writ appeals may be closed and the

legal issues involved in the matter may be kept open for consideration in

appropriate proceedings.

6. Considering the submissions made, both these writ appeals are closed,

observing that the legal issues involved in the matter are left open for

consideration in appropriate proceedings. No costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J IBL HCJ & NJS,J

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL Nos.956 and 957 of 2006

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 13.12.2022

IBL