Rizwana Begum, vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Other
2023 Latest Caselaw 4110 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.4673 of 2023

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief:

"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in seizing the Ashok Leyland Lorry ALEY 3718 vehicle bearing No.MH 13 AX 4832 belongs to the petitioner together with 755 Plastic Bags (298.00 quintals) of rice under panchanama dated 15.12.2022, registered a case in Crime No.342 of 2022 by the 6th respondent on the ground the petitioner transporting/PDS rice as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to release the Ashok Leyland Lorry ALEY 3718 vehicle bearing No.MH 13 AX 4832..."

2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent

No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

the owner of the vehicle i.e., Ashok Leyland Lorry ALEY bearing

No.MH 13 AX 4832 and the vehicle is having all requisite documents

and it is used for transportation of goods, agricultural products, etc.,

on hire basis and the petitioner also used to give her vehicle to third

parties on hire basis for transportation of goods. He further submits

that on 15.11.2022, basing upon the alleged complaint of respondent JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

No.5 that the vehicle of the petitioner transporting 755 plastic bags

(298.00 quintals) of government rice illegally from Hyderabad to

Gujarath, respondent No.6 registered a case vide Crime No.342 of

2022 dated 15.11.2022 for the offence under Section 420 read with

Section 34 of IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955 (hereinafter called, 'the Act'). On 15.12.2022, respondent No.5

conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas and kept the

petitioner's vehicle in respondent No.6 Police Station.

4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that rice and paddy are

not essential commodities as per the provisions of the Act and the

respondents are not having any authority or jurisdiction to seize the

vehicle and stocks through panchanama dated 15.12.2022 and the

entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner's vehicle is contrary

to the provisions of the Act, as well as the Telangana State Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter called, 'the

Control Order'). He further contended that the Additional Collector,

Sanga Reddy District, initiated proceedings invoking the provisions of

Section 6-A of the Act and clause 17-A of the Control Order, especially

the same are not applicable insofar as rice and paddy are concerned.

He also contended that the seized stock/rice was purchased from the

rice millers and it is not PDS rice. In the absence of any material

evidence on record, respondent Nos.5 and 6 alleged that 298 bags of

rice belongs to the Government.

JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the unreported

judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4823 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020 and

reported judgment in Sri Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor and

others v. Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-I, Vijayawada and

others 1.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended

that respondent Nos.5 and 6 found that 755 plastic bags (298.00

quintals) of rice belonging to the Government ration rice (PDS rice)

and petitioner's vehicle transporting the same illegally and the same

was seized after due verification only. During the course of enquiry,

the driver of the vehicle has not produced any document pertaining to

the seized stocks, on the other hand, he had given statement in

writing in the presence of witnesses that the stocks belonging to

Beerbal S/o.Dharan Sani and he is transporting the said rice from

Hyderabad to Gujarat and petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.

7. He further contended that the respondent authorities after

following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of

the Act as well as the Control Order initiated the proceedings vide

E.C.Act Case No.170 of 2022 and the same is pending before the

Additional Collector, Sanga Reddy, and the said authority has already

issued notices to the petitioner as well as the owner of the good

including the driver of vehicle directing them to submit their

2006 (4) ALT 758 (S.B.) JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

objections/explanation and till date they have not submitted their

objections and the said proceedings are pending. He also submits

that pursuant to the interim order dated 06.06.2023 granted by this

Court, the petitioner's vehicle already released and the same is

subject to outcome of the 6-A proceedings. The petitioner, without

approaching the competent authority and without submitting

explanation, approached this Court and filed writ petition and the

same is not maintainable under law.

8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the order passed

in W.P.No.24869 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023, wherein this Court

directed respondent No.2 therein i.e., District Collector, to conclude

Section 6-A proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of the said order and given liberty to the petitioner

therein to raise all the grounds including that rice is not essential

commodity under the provisions of the Act and Control Order.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that

the petitioner is as accused No.2 in Crime No.342 of 2022, the owner

of the seized stocks was arrayed as accused No.3 and the driver of the

petitioner's vehicle was arrayed as accused No.1. The petitioner as

well as accused No.3 absconding and they are not cooperating for

completion of investigation in the above said crime and the petitioner

is not entitled the relief sought in the writ petition.

JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

10. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective

parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals

that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the same was seized

by respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 15.11.2022 and respondent No.6

registered a case in Crime No.342 of 2022 for the offence under

Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act and

the said case is pending. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have conducted

panchanama in the presence of panchas on 15.12.2022, wherein it is

stated that the petitioner's vehicle transporting 755 plastic bags

weighing 298.00 quintals of government ration rice and the same was

seized and kept under safe custody with MLS Point Sadasivapet and

the value of said rice is Rs.3,57,600/- and also seized the vehicle and

kept the said vehicle in the premises of respondent No.6. It further

reveals from the record that pursuant to the interim orders granted by

this Court on 06.06.2023 and 12.07.2023, the respondent authorities

released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and she is

not the owner of the seized stocks. Respondents have initiated 6-A

proceedings invoking the provisions of the Act and Control Order vide

E.C.Act Case No.170 of 2022 and the same is pending before

Additional Collector, Sanga Reddy, and the said authority had issued

notice directing the petitioner, owner of seized stocks and driver of the

vehicle to submit their written statement and neither the petitioner JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

nor the owner of the seized stocks have submitted their objections till

date.

12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the rice does not come within the definition of essential

commodity and the provision of the Act as well as Control Order is not

applicable, hence, the respondents have no jurisdiction to seize the

vehicle of the petitioner as well as stocks.

13. It is very much relevant to place on record that the similar issue

has came up for consideration before this Court in M/s.Sri

Shanmukhi Traders Rep. by its Prop. Ch.Ranga Rao vs. The

Collector (CS) Medak District at Sanga Reddy 2 and the learned

single Judge, while considering the provisions of the Act as well as

Control Order and also the principle laid by the Division Bench of this

Court in Maimuna Begum v. State of Telangana, represented by

its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others 3 and also considering

the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Elluru Chandra Obul

Reddy v. Joint Collector, Kadapa 4 held that the "rice and paddy"

are essential commodities and that a dealer or a miller or a purchaser

of paddy or any person, contravening the order made by the

Government in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 read with

Section 5 of the Act, are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions

2021 (5) ALD 426

2016 (5) ALT 280 (D.B.)

2008 (6) ALT 538 (D.B.) JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

of the Act and further held that the decision in Maimuna Begum

"supra" is not applicable on the ground that the allegation of

purchase of PDS rice from the card holders is after introduction of

Clause 17(e) to Control Order, 2016, and the said judgment is

applicable only to the cases, which falling prior to introduction of the

said provision.

14. In the case on hand, the respondents have initiated the

proceedings against the petitioner as well as the owner of the seized

stock and driver of the vehicle on 15.11.2022, vide Crime No.342 of

2022 under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC and Section 7 of the Act

and thereafter the respondents have conducted panchanama on

15.12.2022 wherein it is stated that petitioner's vehicle illegally

transporting the Government ration rice (PDS rice) of 298.00 quintals

and initiated 6-A proceedings invoking the provisions of the Act as

well as Control Order, 2016 and the principle laid down in M/s.Sri

Shanmukhi Traders Rep. by its Prop. Ch.Ranga Rao "supra" is

squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

order in W.P.No.4283 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020 and judgment of Sri

Sai Traders "supra" relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

case.

15. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the seized stocks (rice) is not Government ration JSR, J W.P.No.4673 of 2023

rice (PDS rice) is concerned, it is disputed question of fact and the

same cannot be determined in this writ petition and the petitioner and

owner of the seized stocks are entitled to submit written

statement/explanation before the concerned authority by producing

relevant evidence in E.C.Act Case No.170 of 2022, which is pending

before the Additional Collector, Sangareddy.

16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of

granting liberty to the petitioner to submit written

statement/explanation by raising all the grounds which are available

under law before Additional Collector, Sanga Reddy, in E.C.Act Case

No.170 of 2022 within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. The Additional Collector, Sangareddy, is directed to

consider the written statement/explanation filed by the petitioner and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of

three (3) weeks from thereafter after giving opportunity to the

petitioner including personal hearing. No costs.

In view of dismissal of main writ petition, interlocutory

applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:18.11.2023 mar