M/S Kalyani Rice Industries, Nalgonda Dist v. Prl Secy, Consumer Affairs, Food And C.S., Hyd And 2 Ot

[ 3302 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 15695 OF 2016 Between:

tvl/s.Kalyani Rice lndustries, Rep.by its Partner,. Garlapati Mattupalli S/o Mallaiah, aged 56 years, Occ Business, Rl/o Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Sup-plies T.S. Se-cretariat Buildings Hyderabad. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. The Grain Purchasing Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. J ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT OF MANDAMUS declare the seizure of Government IPK Paddy 15174.20 Qtls own Paddy 23325 Qtls , Boiled Rice 500 Qtls, Brokens 80 Qfls worth totaling Rs. 5.71 crores by the 3rd respondent conducted Panchanama dated 25-4-2016 is illegal, arbitrary, improper. without any power or authority under law and violation of Article t 9(t )(g) of the constitution of lndia-

l.A. NO: 1OF 2O16(WPMP. NO: 1940s oF 2016) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the Respondents to release the seized stocks of Government IPK Paddy 15174.20 Qtls Own Paddy 23325 ,Qtls , Boiled Rice 500 Qtls, Brokens 80 Qtls worth totaling Rs. 5.71 Crores by the 3rd respondent conducted Panchanama daled 25-4-2016.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI H.V.R.R.SWAMY Counset for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER

Page 7 oJ 4 SI(,J WP No.75695 ol 2076 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH U/RIT PETITION No. 15695 of 2O16 OR.DER:

This petition is Iiled under Article 226 of th.e Constitution of tndia, seeking the following relief: "... to issue ant appropiate Wnt, Order or direction' more particularly one in the nature of Wnt oJ Monciamus, declare the seizure of Gouernment IPK poddpt 15174.20 Quintats, Own Poddg: 23325 Quintctls, boiled Rice 5OO Quintats' Broken Rice 80 Quintals, worth totating to Rs 5 71 Crores bg the 3'd respondent I{o.3 under Panchanama dated 25.04.2016 as iLlegat, arbitrary, improper'

u.tithout czn1 pou)er or authoitg under lanu and uiolation of Articte 19 (1 ) (g) of the Constitution of India' " '" 2.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lis in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in Sri Sai Traders' rep. by its Proprietor and others Vs' Assistant Supply Officer, Circle-l, Vijayawada and othersl' He lurther submits that the seizure of stocks in the ' 2006 l4l ALT 758

page 2 oJ 4 wp No.ts6es "r i{;t"

preserrt case is prior to introduction of Clause 17 (e) of the Telalgala State public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (for short ,the Control Order), arrd th,rt by the date of seizure, purchase of pDS rice from the cardholders is not an offence. He further submitri that in Maimuna Begum Vs. The State of Telangir.na rep. by its Chief Secretary2, this Court held that purchase of pDS r-ice from the cardhoklers is not al offence.

3.

LeeLrned Government pleader tor Civil Supplies, representing the Government pleader, submits that as per cliluse 17 (.el of the Control Or,Cer, any person, who is fitund to have purchased the rice supplied through jfublic Distribution System either from the card holclers or from the F.p shop dealer or any other sotlrce, IS Iiable for criminal action arld rmpositiorr of penalty as may be fixed by the q- 2 2016 (5) ALT 280

Pqge 3 of 4 SK,J WP No.75695 of 2016 the competent authority. However, he could not dispute that as on the date of seizure, purchase of PDS rice from the cardholders is not an offence entailing conhscation under 6-,4 of the Essential Commodities Act.

This Court in Maimuna Begum's case (supra 2)lneld as under:

" A careJul reading of Clause 17(A) of Andhrd Pradesh State Public Distibution System (Controt) Order, 2O08' shows tlnt the same is attrocted- if a fair pice shop dealer or cardholder or anA person causes interntption or interkres tuith tlle smooth distibution of scheduled commodities under the publrc drstnbutio,t syslem or other Gouernment schemes at ang leuel ngLtt frott the Foo(l Corporation oJ India godoun to tLe fair price shop poirtt, titl the scheduled commoditg reaches the Lntended benefi.ciary' From the unequiuocal plain language of this prouision, it is clear that it gets attracted when there is u eruption of lood grains from ttLe stage of FCI gorlotutt tlll il reaches the end beneficiary i.e.

,cdrdholders The prouision does not comprehend ang ) ) actiuitA relating to ana commoditg fatling under the Control Order, 2OOB once it reaches the cordlalden Th'ere is rto ) u.,hispet eitfler in the detention ord'er or in tlrc grounds of detention thclt aftg of the detenus is ntemtpting the smooth functioning of the scheduled comrrodtties from the FCI godou,n point ti.

sr(,J WP No.75695 oJ 20 16 theg haue been purchasing ctzrriholders. Therefora, Ihls the PDS ice from the actiuitg of the detenus completely falls outside Clause 1Z(A) of the Control Order, 200i1. Once there is no prohibition on such octiuig either under the 1995 Act or under the Control Order, 2OOg uthtch undisputedlg is the onlg Order that gouerns distribution (rnd conbol of rtce meant Jor public d.istibution sllstem, the deteilus cannot be accused of committng ang offence. As the failed to show that the detenus the prouistons oJ ang other Control respttndents contrzuened haue, Order framrzd under Section 3 of the l99S Act, the olteged actiutttes oJ th(, detenus are not hable for anA penal cLction. Once ther actiuties do not constitute (ln offence under Law, their preuentiue detention under the prouistons of the jggo Acl cannot be sustained".

5. Following the judgment of this Court in Maimuna Begum's case (supra 2) and for the reasons alike, this writ t)etition is allowed. No order as to costs. 6.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending 1n this Writ l)etition shall stand closed.

.l'hat Rule Nisi has been made absolute a,s above' witness rliEil'or.rgr-e rHe cirEi 'lusrlcE-ALoK ARADHE' on this ' '-fiiUay, fn" Twenty Ninth-Day Of December iwo Thousand And Twenty I hree ) I J SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT OFFICER to',, The princioal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies T S Secretariat ' Ririldinos State of Telanqana, Hyderabad'

z. ine oiitrict t)ollector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda lJrstrlct .

5. +ii; G;;i;Pii[nadlng otricer, t'lirvatiguda' Nalsonda District' a. One CC to SRI H.V.R.R.SWAMY, Advocate luH-uul

5. Two ccs to Gp FOR br-vii"su'pp,-1iES, Hign c"ri.t for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. OUTI Two CD Cotrries.

BSK GJP \S[,

HIGH COURT DATED:291'1212023 .,.:.,\\ ";.-* 'i . ''\ .:'-.

./ ,-, /l 7\t 2i :, '1 B ;ri.ii -i:'r -) .4 *

ORDER

WP.No.15695 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C;OSTS -\ \ ^1, {r-